Talk:Swinomish people

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Swinomish people → Swinomish – target is redirect to current title, first created as a two-line dab with one item a redlink by 64.40.60.5 on Sept 24 2003 then converted to redirect to "Swinomish (tribe)" by Agent86 on Jan 3 2007, citing "no article ever created on the river and does not seem to be of any significance that an article will be made anytime soon)". Not that Swinomish River will never exist, but as with many other cases, rivers named for a people are rarely, if ever, more of a primarytopic than their namesake. Then moved by Kwami to "Swinomish tribe" on Dec 13 2010, then moved by myself to current title Jan 6 2011 (I did not have the option of moving it to Swinomish because of the existing redirect. As with others of this kind WP:UNDAB should be observed. Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, there is no Swinomish River. There is a Swinomish Channel, at the page. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, WP:UNDAB applies anyway re "FOO whatever" titles not being as primary as "FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:UNDAB applies to nothing and probably should be moved to an individual user sandbox. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It articulates "precision" and "conciseness" on CRITERIA and IMO its details on that should be integrated into WP:CRITERIA.Skookum1 (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)