Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

edit

Category:Anti-FGM activists

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Activists against female genital mutilation – Fayenatic London 21:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe there was rough consensus to rename this to match the head article at Female genital mutilation, so separating this out to come to a clear consensus. we will deal with the victims category separately. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I believe that strong arguments are more important than head-count. The acronym is widely known there is no problem with the current title. Even though i also supported the previous move attempt, myself and another supporter did not provide strong support for it, and it was mostly indifference. Pass a Method talk 16:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, in the interest of clarity we should spell it out - your argument could be used to move Female genital mutilation to FGM - we normally use redirects for such acronyms, but we don't use redirects for categories that much, the category names are sometimes explicitly more clear than even article names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point stands that it may sound like "anti-female" as in "againist women" Pass a Method talk 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the other option I proposed above avoids this issue: Category:Activists against female genital mutilation--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment @Pass a Method:: the fact that you oppose a nomination is no grounds for a speedy close. See WP:SPEEDYKEEP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A slight disadvantage of that option is that it's inconsistent with most other subcats of Category:Health activists which follow the "Foo activists" format. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But much as I value consistency, I think that the "anti-female" phrase should be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simply point out that there are thousands of google hits for the phrase "Anti-female genital mutiliation", here is scholar; while the confusion is an interesting theoretical point, in the real world I don't think anyone is confused, as they're all using that terminology without issue. Anti-female genital mutilation has the advantage of mapping more closely to other activist categories, and I think the spectre of confusion is overblown.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any reader finding this category is either at Category:Genital integrity activists, at Category:Female genital mutilation or at the bottom of an article about a person for whom this is a defining characteristic. Thus they are unlikely to be uninitiated. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of ways to find categories, and to assume that a reader finding it will understand the terminology is unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples of where a reader would see this category (apart from those I've mentioned) ? DexDor (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Montgomery Gentry

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT, unnecessary artist category with only albums and songs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest editing, following the pattern of the existing sub-cat Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. I have left the existing category for mainspace articles, as its hyphenated name matches the lead article. This close is no bar to creating a parent Category:Conflict-of-interest editing if suitable member pages are found, but there is already Category:Conflict of interest. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is attached to a bunch of articles and also to a bunch of WP: internal pages such as guidelines. I think we don't do hybrid categories like this. Right? Or shouldn't. This would be confusing the reader, we do not want to blur the line between articles and internal guidelines. The second category Category:Conflict-of-interest editing could be used for internal pages. Herostratus (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have walked on the Moon

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (i.e. not renamed). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The new name is shorter and likely, prettier, without loosing any correctness. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Georgian rugby union teams

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/merge. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Georgia (country). There is no unambiguous adjectival form for Georgia (country) – "Georgian" could mean either the country or Georgia (U.S. state) – so it always has to be an exception to categories which take the adjectival form.
See for example Category:Rugby union players by nationality, which is all adjectival except for Category:Rugby union players from Georgia (country). Same for Category:Sportspeople by nationality, which is all adjectival except for Category:Sportspeople from Georgia (country).
This was initially nominated for speedy renaming, but opposed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Category:Georgian rugby union teams was created in 2010. The target Category:Rugby union teams from Georgia (country) was created 4 years later, in January 2014. AFAICS, none of the articles in were moved from the pre-existing category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples of by-nationality categories which use an adjectival format with an exception for Georgia (country):
... and lots of sub-categories of Category:People from Georgia (country) by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Firstly, this is US-centric (when did an American state's name take precedence over an entity which was centuries old when the USA was founded?). Secondly, this is not in line with the usage on the other articles in Category:rugby union teams. (Changing it to "rugby union teams from X" does not solve the issue of London Scottish FC which is a Scottish team based in London for example, and which is affiliated to the Scottish Rugby Union. There are numerous other expat rugby teams which do not fit into this hierarchy.)
Thirdly, the America Georgia is not notable in rugby at all, not even within the US context. (There are teams from there of course). Georgia the country has competed at a number of rugby world cups.
One might as well argue that we are not allowed to use the adjective "Pre-Columbian" in case DC and the Canadian province of British Columbia object! Or that the adjective "Victorian" must be differentiated so that the residents of the Australian state of Victoria are not confused with it.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't bothered to look at the rest of the category. The adjectival country means that both teams from a country, and those expat teams based in another country are both covered.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MacRusgail: Where are these articles on Georgian expat rugby teams? And if there is a Georgian team based in (say) France, what's the problem? Just put it in both categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The geographical term "Georgia" is a special case because two entities carry that name and they are each large and famous, so carving out an exception is called for, and this seems fine.
re the above points, how old the country of Georgia is is not germane (and FWIW the US state has about twice the population and land area of the Asian country). That Georgia is a lot bigger in the rugby world is germane, to a point. However, the idea is not to determine which Georgia "wins" the "honor" of getting to use the unalloyed term "Georgian", but to aid the reader in navigation while minimizing possible points of confusion. This proposal does so IMO. Herostratus (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia the country is FAR FAR more notable. It is completely US-centric to claim otherwise. One's an independent state, and long term region, and the other is a second/third rung American subnational entity. Do you support the use of "Victorian (period)" in all articles, to distinguish them from Victoria, the state of Australia, and Victoria in Canada?! Or for that matter all use of California in the USA must be distinguished from the village of the same name in Scotland!-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamo Tbilisi is a MULTISPORT club for your information (like many of those in the former Soviet Union), and DOES play rugby. Here we can see rapidly what a dog's dinner this is becoming.
Want a reference? Try Richard Bath's Complete Book of Rugby page 67. Dynamo Tbilisi is mentioned as a rugby club there.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a category is not an article about a rugby team. A multi sports club is not a rugby team either. Feel free to create an article about the rugby section of Dinamo Tbilisi and categorise the article under Category:Rugby union teams from Georgia (country). Oculi (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MacRusgail: The article Dinamo Tbilisi doesn't even mention the word rugby. The dog's dinner here is the addition to a rugby category of a set of pages which do not even name-check the sport, and most of which are explicitly about other sports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support the use of "Victorian (period)" in all articles, to distinguish them from Victoria, the state of Australia, and Victoria in Canada?! -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, categories should not be ambiguous, it causes cleanup problems. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Victorian is a bit different, as that refers to a time period, vs a city.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Georgian also refers to a time period. Obi-Wan.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, this is longstanding convention to disambiguate this way. That's what you get for having a US state named after you - namespace collision for the rest of your life. ugh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is a lonstanding convention. The question of priority is irrelevant, becuase it will not prevent the country inadvertently picking up categories relating to the state (or vice versa). I expect that little Rugby is played in the state, but we should follow the convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bridge disambiguation pages

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The overwhelmingly standard way of categorizing these pages is through temples on the talk pages, and it looks like that has been implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Readers are not expected to (use categories to) try to find disambiguation pages (which are not articles). Dab pages aren't about a topic (e.g. even a dab page with a name containing the word "Bridge" may have entries that aren't bridges - example). Groups of editors (i.e. wikiprojects) may have an interest in a dab page (just like any other page) and can use a talk page (i.e. editor-side) category. Currently WP:BRIDGE don't have a category specifically for dab pages that interest them, but they do put some dab pages (e.g. Burma bridge and Champlain Bridge) in Category:NA-Class Bridge articles. Thus, we currently have two (partly overlapping) categories for "bridge" dab pages (which is inefficient and confusing). This type of category (added manually to dab pages) is also discouraged by the parent category (CAT:DABP#Notes). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a disambiguation page category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Category:Saint_Petersburg_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's rather more than 20 if the subcats (e.g. Category:North Indian cyclone disambiguation pages) are included. I intend to try to clean up the whole lot (e.g. a couple more are being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_13#Category:Environmental_agency_disambiguation_pages), but a single CFD that attempted to cover all 20 would get very messy. DexDor (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are now all in Category:Disambig-Class Bridge articles. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just notified them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Obi. @BHG: It's not quite correct to say I want WT:BRIDGE to take over the functions of this category. I'm not sure that categorization of dab pages is useful (and hence that there's a function that needs to be performed). But, if it is, we shouldn't have a messy hodge-podge of some such categories reader-side and some such categories editor-side (on talk page) (in the Syracuse case we had both for the same topic). My emphasis is on cleaning up reader-side categorization - and for dab pages that's partly because they can accrue lots of categories [1] and it may blur the line between a dab page and an article. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're to more efficiently handle alerting people (as a whole on Wikipedia), all wikiprojects should subscribe to the article alerts bot, and have their banners on all content in scope of their projects, not just articles. (including dab pages, redirects, categories, templates, project pages) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think topic projects are primarily concerned with articles (although they may have a use for a category for dab pages where most/all entries are within their project). DexDor (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, alternate names for their topics would also be important (ie. redirects and dismabiguation pages that lists their articles), and the manner in which they are sorted (categorization), and footer/sidebar navboxen that interlink their articles (templates), and ofcourse their own WikiProject (project pages). Access and findability of articles should be a concern of wikiprojects even if they don't realize it (if you can't find the data, it effectively doesn't exist on Wikipedia) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If by "banner" you mean what appears at the top of Category:Bridge articles by quality etc then it already shows "Disambig". DexDor (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By Banner I mean the thing that uses {{WPBannerMeta}} (specifically Template:WikiProject Bridges/class); which has also been updated, though lets see what WPBRIDGE says. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banner has been updated, template has been updated, and Category:Disambig-Class Bridge articles is starting to be populated. Is there any opposition to closing this now and focusing on tagging the article talk pages so they end up in the disambig-class category?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a structure of categories for "dab pages where many/most entries are about <topic>" on both reader-side and editor-side (talk pages) is unnecessary, leads to inconsistencies (which may be confusing for editors) and may waste editor time creating duplicate categories. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Squamish

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (i.e. do not rename or delete anything).
Somewhere within all this there may be a brilliantly sound, policy-based rationale for the proposed actions; or maybe not. It's impossible to know, because the walls of text posted by the nominator mean that it will be read in full by nobody except the most extraordinarily dedicated editor, with several days to digest it all. I have followed XFD discussions for nearly 8 years, and in all that time I have never seen such extraordinary verbosity. One editor noted that the nom had posted 133,572 characters in this discussion, and more followed after the count was made. That's about the same length as a Masters Degree thesis ... for a discussion about the name of one category.
This tsunami of words was so blatantly disruptive and bludgeoning that I count it as evidence of a consensus against the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Squamish and embrace the emergent endonym category name Category:Skwxwu7mesh which is in fact a form of the original category name, and congruent with other Category:First Nations in British Columbia subcategory titles and standards. This category name was decided clearly unworkable in the CfD closed May 4, 2013 by User:Fayenatic london because of its geographic ambiguities and the overarching reality that the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish" in English is not the people but the town of that name. I have advised the editor who created this category a few days ago, and who claims to have read that CfD, of the problems caused by it, she is unrepentant about the complications, claims to have read the CfD (but clearly didn't understand it) and says glibly ""If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing." Myself I'd rather see this back at Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, including the diacriticals, than live with the awkwardness of Category:Squamish people, and have proposed before that Category:Skwxwu7mesh be used in "anglicized" form similar to Category:St'at'imc, Category:Sto:lo and others in Category:First Nations in British Columbia but there is not enough usage in English of the "Skwxwu7mesh" version of the name, such as there is for the other examples. In any case, re-creating this category name was ill-advised and since its creator shows no signs of trying to correct their mistake, I have emptied the new category and changed back the category description on Category:Squamish people which she altered irrespective of what the CfD said. This mis-named redirect category Category:Skwxwu7mesh is also nominated for deletion, it was apparently made of a mis-spelled usage of it in one of my communications to her. Interloping on such category names by people not familiar with the topics and contexts involved to prevent such further arbitrary problem-spreading needs to be formalized. That there is a new section of MOS re article style, though not about categories, that goes ["If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor"] should be considered re User:OldManRivers' original creation, as reigning wiki-expert on his people no less, re Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or an "anglicized" Category:Skwxwu7mesh to be adopted over Category:Squamish people, but for now Category:Squamish was created unilaterally by someone with no knowledge of the field and no concern for what the CfD had been about, and should be deleted as a violation of process, likewise the intermediary Category:Skwxwu7mesh though, again, that title is the preferred one to this editor. The bit from MOS about original style I may use as t he basis for an RM to move Squamish people back to Sḵwx̱wú7mesh or Skwxwu7mesh in which case this could just be speedied. But for now the violation of protocol caused by ignoring the May 4, 2013 CfD cannot be tolerated; if she can do that, then why couldn't I have just ignored the CfD and created and populated Category:Skwxwu7mesh by myself and ignored all procedure? Or can Wikipedia decisions by overturned by the whim of anyone, experienced editor or not? I should note that User:OldManRivers has long since tired of the name-games about his people and does not come here very often anymore, and also note that in the the RM that changed his original article title to Squamish people included the boast that "since he's not around anymore we don't have to go by what he wanted" or something to that effect...the RM IMO was faulty, and the category name changed by speedy without any discussion despite all the complications arising as a result.Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete and salt the ambiguous Category:Squamish per WP:G4 following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 4#Category:Squamish, which I closed. As for the other: the Squamish are almost alone among Category:First Nations in British Columbia in not having a sub-cat for individual biographies, and I think this should be remedied. We could either (A) keep Category:Squamish people as the parent category including culture and locations, adding perhaps Category:Ethnic Squamish people as the sub-cat for bios; or (B) adopt Category:Skwxwu7mesh as the parent, and use Category:Squamish people for individual bios, despite the main article for the parent being at Squamish people. Note that the 7 is a pronunciation mark, like the colon which is retained in Sto:lo despite removal of diacritics at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_3#Sto:lo_categories and the two discussions above that. I incline to (B), which could have been the outcome last year if Skookum1 had delivered on what he promised about sources, instead of pouring so much energy into complaining about other editors. Either way, if somebody can find a way to close this speedily, that would save Skookum1 filling up Wikipedia's servers with walls of text. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I will do a cite survey of the Skwxwu7mesh usage but I doubt it will outweigh "Squamish" at this point, though other similar endonyms are now common in BC. It's by far the least ambiguous of all outcomes, and please note for individual biographies "Skwxwu7mesh people" is obvious enough, and "Squamish people" can mean "people from the town of Squamish" (I can't explain to you how odd "Squamish culture" sounds...I'll let you guess). "Ethnic Squamish people" is the only other title for that (almost) but it would be anomalous among BC FN groups for individuals; "people of Squamish descent" is how some non-native Canadian ethnicities are handled, it still has ambiguities because of the overarching meaning of Squamish as the town. I must re-iterate about the RM that precipitated this, though, that many of the arguments poised there were not acceptable and should not have been reckoned into the decision, and that the kneejerk speedy to Category:Squamish seems to have been done in over-haste; and that reverting the main ethnic people article to what its creator deemed most appropriate should outweigh late-comer opinions/decisions on the matter; that would mean the diacritical version of the title, but it is by far preferable to the confusions cause by "Squamish people" as either article or category title.Skookum1 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This was previously deleted as mentioned above and should have never been recreated. It is far too general given the listing at the Squamish disambiguation page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Edit: Keep Category:Squamish as a dab page; keep Category:Squamish people as a subcat for individuals; Rename—find acceptable name for ethnic group/government/First Nations category]). Hi, I split Category:Squamish people into two categories, Category:Squamish for articles pertaining to the ethnic group/Nation/geography, and Category:Squamish people, for the individual people's biographies. Could everyone please look at the subcats in Category:First Nations people, Category:Native American people by tribe, and Category:Indigenous people of the Americas. There are over a hundred pre-existing "people" (singular) subcats populated by individual biographies of members of the ethnic group in question. If you want to rename Category:Squamish to Category:Squamish Nation, Category:Squamish First Nations, Category:Squamish peoples (pluralized), etc., that's totally fine with me; I don't care. But please do look at the other First Nations and other Indigenous categories and leave Category:Squamish people (singular) for the biographies of individual Squamish people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
    • You persist in ignoring what I've explained to you, that Category:Squamish people was deemed by the CfD's adjudicator as being the only acceptable solution, despite the well-known "FOO people" problem which, yes, is a big problem and part of why the authentic endonyms were adopted for the ethnic group categories in Category:First Nations in British Columbia. And I've also explained to you, and you persist in refusing to admit to your mistake, that Category:Squamish cannot be used because the ethnic group is demonstrably NOT the PRIMARYTOPIC. Your listing of "Category:Squamish Nation, Category:Squamish First Nations, Category:Squamish peoples (pluralized) etc." demonstrates to those who know the material, and the language of Canadian indigenous topics, of your complete lack of qualifications to comment on any naming for this people; to whit, there are not "Squamish peoples", there are not multiple band governments (which the convention "FOO First Nation(s) is used for when used in titles), there is only the Squamish Nation, but that is NOT (REPEAT NOT) the same thing as the Skwxwu7mesh people and should not be used for this category. As has all been gone over before in the CfD you claim to have read but clearly did NOT get the slightest whiff of what it meant. Your obstinacy about your unilateral action here, and your persistence in advancing suggestions which were done away with long ago, strikes me as messing around where you do not belong about matters which you do not understand. I invited you to do the easiest, obvious and most indigenously authentic action, to rename your newly created and workable category name Category:Skwxwu7mesh, but instead of heeding that you created it as a redirect to your own pet new Category:Squamish which cannot stand. You told me "other editors" should have their say; they did, you ignored them; they are speaking again, and more will follow and yet you still trot out your half-baked understanding and point to the FOO people problem as if that were at fault. What was at fault here was people taking part in naming decisions who don't know the subject matter or interpret what little they do know speciously. And yes, Fayenatic London, before I eat up all Wikipedia's server space I'll desist from saying again what I've had to say too many times before and not be provoked into a "if Skookum1 hadn't been so vocal he might have got his way" judgment of this as others have played in the past (including the other rogue editor who perpetrated teh "FOO people" problem and behaved similarly parochial, dictating from outside BC what BC first nations peoples should be allowed to call themselves....which is much the same problem here, despite my 'opponent" being a pro-indigenous editor herself...that someone would say something as inane as "use the band government name" (Squamish Nation) just shows me how completely out of touch she is with this topic and why she should never have presumed to make a simplistic, from-outside action that now requires explanations of all the arguments she would not listen to and told me to go find "other editors" to have their say. Apparently those who have spoken before, including the category's creator, were not good enough for her.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am disagreeing with you, which is allowed. If everyone can agree on a new category name, such Category:Squamish First Nations, that's fine with me. All the other groups in Category:First Nations in British Columbia are simply the name of the group. In other provinces, almost all groups are the name of the group; however, exceptions are Category:Mohawk tribe and Category:Blackfoot tribe‎. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
You can disagree with me but only by ignoring pertinent facts. (a) the primary topic of "Squamish" is the town (b) "Squamish people" was mandated by CfD taking into account all the factors you persist in ignoring (c) "Squamish First Nations" is completely a non sequitur and is out of step with all other Canadian FN categories, and is clear demonstration of your lack of qualification to comment on this subject at all. "You do not have a right to your opinion" if it is wrong, i.e. to have your opinion taken seriously, which it cannot be. Category:Mohawk tribe is problematic, as is Category:Blackfoot tribe, because in wiki convention "FOO tribe" is for federally-recognized tribes when used as category names but both Mohawk and Blackfoot are more numerous on the Canadian side of the border where the "FOO tribe" usage is not workable (though there are a few bands such as Tlowitsis Tribe that use "Tribe" in their names). "all the other groups in :Category:First Nations in British Columbia, yes, are the name of the group. This one's name was Category:Skwxwu7mesh - the authentic name, not the anglicized form of it - until another editor or two, as ignorant of the subject matter as you are, waded in and first rapidly RMd the main article, then speedied the category change, and like you don't seem to have a clue about the geographic confusion/ambiguity that results. Unless you feel that a category for the Illinois people should be at Category:Illinois.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Illinois Confederacy. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
"Illinois Confederacy" is a political alliance category, and only by extension includes ethnographic articles. This falls in with your equally weak and out of place suggestion that "Squamish Nation" should be the ethno category title, even though that's the name of the whiteman-imposed government.... there's a lot of inconsistencies across IPNA names and categories, you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories, saying I had not enough knowledge to work on that area, and then yet you wade in here, clearly without any knowledge of the people or the geography at all, and start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about.Skookum1 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of doing what too many Wikipedians do, screwing around with category and article names without even knowing the subject matter, why don't you actually work on improving BC First Nations articles and learning about the subject matter and cultural/political realities and language/nomenclature used before pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the title of the ethno categories in Category:First Nations in British Columbia have been raised to defend the category name in question, but an inspection of the main articls of various of those categories will reveal, in Category:Syilx, the main article is Okanagan people, in Category:Wuikinuxv, the main article is now at Oowekeeno people (one of various possible but archaic anglicisms that the term "Wuikinuxv" was coined to replace), Category:Dakelh's main article is at Carrier people. These were all the results of a lone editor going around changing to allegedly-mostcommon names people; and other main articles were affected, e.g. Category:St'at'imc, Category:Tsilhqot'in's main articles, and because these were changed without discussion they were eventually, after hard-fought RMs, reverted back to the indigenously-authentic names, such as are no increasingly the preferred usage in Canadian media, education and business. The hitch with Squamish people is there had been an actual RM, albeit a flawed one, quickly followed by a CfD which produced Category:Squamish people which was created for the ethnic group despite the confusions of "FOO people" (and which also implies "people from the town of Squamish". So Skwxwu7mesh could "not" be used, because of the RM consensus and then becauase of the CfD decision, and because other FN articles are similarly "FOO people" titled that title remains in place. Category:Skwxwu7mesh would fit with the other "FNs in BC" category members, but because of an RM advanced and decided by non-IPNA editors that mandated using the anglicism version, and because there are no guidelines for the use of endonyms in such cases (despite my efforts to advance some...), the issue remains unresolved so long as it is open to people who know nothing of the topic to wade into the fray pointing at guidelines and examples out of context to the history of the name problem. There are other "FOO people" categories in this indigenous hierarchies out there, just not FNs in BC....... If I'd been listened to, instead of discounted and my input ruled out of order for being critical of other editors who made bad decisions based on flawed information, we wouldn't be right now. And gee, the main Skwxwu7mesh author and contributor to Wikipedia wouldn't have left and would still be creating and expanding his excellent series of articles, instead of writing wikipedia off as he has done....Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And about all those endonym-name categories in Category:First Nations in British Columbia if I hadn't taken on the RMs for the main articles on many of them, which were changed by another outsider to the area (User:Kwamikagami), then many of those categories would have since been speedied to Category:Thompson people, Category:Kutenai people (even though Kutenai is not a spelling used in Canada), Category:Shuswap people, Category:Lillooet people and Category:Chilcotin people. So far there has been a truce such that Category:Carrier people for Dakelh and Category:Fraser River Salish or Category:Fraser River Indians (for Sto:lo and Category:Okanagan people for Syilx and so on have not been speedied. The use of endonym forms in the FNs of BC category was intentional because of all the ambiguities posed by each of those potential category names but these confusions are not evident to those from outside the province: not having " people" in their names was also intentional in both article and category titles, but this was ignored and shortshrifted in more than one case including Skwxwu7mesh=Squamish. I'm all for a non-FOO people result, but Category:Squamish ain't it' for the same reason that Category:Okanagan is not the category for the Okanagan people. How many times to I have to explain this before it's heard by those who insist on talking about anything else but??
  • comment It seems we do indeed need at least two categories here - one to include biographies of people who are Squamish, which could be Squamish people or Skwxwu7mesh people, but given the current article title Squamish people would make more sense, with Skwxwu7mesh as a redirect. We still need a category for the cultural topics related to Squamish. If Squamish tout court is too ambiguous, we could salt it, or preferably, leave Category:Squamish as a category disambiguation page like Category:Georgia, and move the current contents to Category:Squamish (First Nations) to distinguish it from the town, and from the biographies. Snookum1, please don't empty a category before nominating it for deletion, it makes it a lot harder to see what the intent of the category was. I've restored some of the contents for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category was created illegitimately, and the Category:Squamish people category was hijacked by the "new" category's creator to become the "people who are Squamish" category even though this was expressly not intent; she moved material out of the main ethno category into the "people from" category without warrant, hijacking it, and ignored the CfD's decision to avoid Category:Squamish = which only came into being because of a faulty RM at the main ethno article fomented by points that included bigotry and wrong information, causing a speedy category change to the "Squamish" title WHICH IS NOT WORKABLE because of the PRIMARYTOPIC issue. All solutions brought forward to keep this category name, including your idea of other titles and a disambiguation category are so overcomplicated and unwieldy - and awkward looking e.g. Squamish First Nations (totally anomalous in Canadian ethno titles) - that the obvious solution of re-embracing the authentic form of the endonym (Squamish is an anglicization of Skwxwu7mesh) as the name of this category. There is that new bit in MOS about respecting style established by creators and principal authors, and though Skwxwu7mesh isn't exactly the same as OldManRivers' diacriticalized and special-character version, it's at least viable as an endonym, matches the authenticity of the other ethno categories in BC, and isn't geographically confusing nor does it have PRIMARYTOPIC conflicts. Again, I'll note that Tsilhqot'in and Secwepemc and Ktunaxa articles and categories exist as they do to prevent PRIMARYTOPIC collisions with Chilcotin, Shuswap and Kutenai/Kootenay; and it's why Snunyemuxw instead Nanaimo. Native peoples began to use their "authentic" endonyms in modern times to overcome having others decide what they should be called, and they use these terms in English to advance their own names for themselves; the barrier to Skwxwu7mesh being used was twofold, one was that it's not in as wide use as its sibling terms like St'at'imc and Sto:lo are, the other was that 'Skookum1 talks too much' which geezus, you might as well make into a wikipedia guideline for the amount it gets used to justify bad decisions. The RM on Squamish people was faulty on several counts and should be overturned, and the precedents to use undiacriticalized titles as with St'at'imc and Sto:lo be used to streamline OldManRivers' original article and category titles..... given what is on the Squamish disambiguation page, his intent, which IPNA and WPCANADA went along with for a long time until the RM came along, was to avoid exactly the kind of confusion with the town that is what is going on here; you are all downplaying that issue, but it is the primary reason that the CfD came out as Category:Squamish people and (a) Uysvidi should not have ignored that CfD and started a category name that it expressly avoided (b) not have hijacked the Category:Squamish people category and (c) read up on the subject matter and Canadian/WikiCanadian conveventions and language/name issues. And oh, criticizing other editors, how else am I supposed to point out their errors and lack of understanding except by explaining why they are wrong, and how they violated procedure, and how their suggested solutions are all out of whack and out of step (such as proposing Squamish First Nations, which is a non-starter)? The point form you ask for hyere is simple:
        • Category:Squamish was negated by the CfD, and that fact was ignored by its re-creator who shows no sign of understanding the reasons it was not used, and why that CfD even took place
        • Category:Squamish people was mandated by that CfD to be the main ethno category title, despite the FOO people problem as noted by the closing admin of the CfD, and yet while you say a category shouldn't be depopulated before it's deleted (even though it was illegitimately created), she depopulated Category:Squamish people of all the non-people/individual articles by "upcatting" them, which amounts to emptying that category so she could hijack it.
        • All proposals from others so far about the category name are unworkable and/or clumsy; the only workable rename fits with other BC FN ethno category names, i.e Category:Skwxwu7mesh. "FOO First Nations" is used in band government names (e.g. Tla-O-Qui-Aht First Nations) though that construction is usually singular. There is no "plural" sense of Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish, like there is of the Kwakwaka'wakw and Sto:lo and Dakelh.
        • Even given the RM at Squamish people, the speedy CfR that moved this category was not ironclad mandated; as pointed out by User:Lilicharlie on one of the associated RMs or CfDs at the time, guidelines are not policies, they are not LAWS, and this mess could have been avoided by not changing the category name so wantonly. There are reasons, she noted, that exceptions can be and are made. So far that remains the case with Carrier people re Category:Dakelh and Okanagan people re Category:Syilx and many others (including Mohawk people vs the problematic category name Category:Mohawk tribe, though that is not an anglicism vs endonym issue). That the Vancouver media have not embraced the use of Skwxwu7mesh in the same way that they have St'at'imc, Sto:lo, Gitxsan, Lil'wat, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, Tsilhqot'in, Ktunaxa, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth and other parallel terms is problematic in terms of teh wiki obsession with google results to determine common use. Well, I have a new guideline to propose WP:PRACTICAL USE. Using Skwxwu7mesh is the clear, unambiguous, practical solution, in harmony with titles in the same category/topic area, and has no awkwardness or ambiguity to it as do all the other suggestions currently being brought forward. Again I find it ironic that an indigenous activist would be advancing the use of a "colonialist" anglicism over a more authentic native-derived endonym (which is how Skwxwu7mesh activists including OMR view the "Squamish" spelling). Again, this boils down to the intent and wishes as to style and spelling of the article/category's original creator, but all the interloping about this, whether the RM or the CfD, is from people unfamiliar with Skwxwu7mesh issues and realities and the on-the-ground geollinguistic reality of the term "Squamish". Again Category:Squamish can no more be the category for the Skwxwu7mesh ethnic group than Category:Okanagan can be for the Okanagan people (Syilx - another term not as in wide us, like Skwxwu7mesh, so the speedy change to that title has also had to go tolerated; though I did file an RM on Carrier people last night because, again, the creator or that title and its category is, like OMR for the Skwxwu7mesh, a preeminent scholar in Dakelh studies and the new MOS guideline is to respect their wishes; and yet accepted as a point in the RM decided by Vegaswikian was the notion that because OldManRivers isn't around anymore, what he wants doesn't haev to be respected; the cryptoracist and/or chauvinistic tone of some of hte other points in the RM was also an issue lost on someone unfamiliar with the contexts/implications of what was being said.
        • Trying to keep this in point form when so many non sequiturs are fielded as "solutions" which are even more unworkable, and there are so many case examples and reasons of why the easy solution, seemingly being avoided by all of you so far, is Category:Skwxwu7mesh, that do not boil down to "point form", and the need to continue to repeat points already made because the same erronous logics and "solutions that aren't" keep on being trotted out, doesn't make this easy. But to decide against the best solution because "Skookum1 talks too much" amounts to a personal attack; I can't help it if explaining a mess someone else has made gets messy; the clearcut solution is there to be had; instead I'm hearing all kinds of suggestions that are unnecessarily complicated and which also fly in the face of naming conventions well-established in WPCANADA, and for a long time, until RMs and speedy CfDs started to fly, caused by people who don't know the material and decided by peopoe with the same problem, in IPNA too....how can erroneous thinking not be corrected if not by criticism? "Criticizing other editors" is necssary when they are WRONG and also when they have violated and disrespected procedure as has happened in this case. If Usyvidi can go ahead and create Category:Squamish and then populate it by depopulating Category:Squamish people so she can ignore what it was created for and use it for her own purposes, then why couldn't I have just created Category:Skwxwu7mesh on my own long ago and ALSO ignored the CfD result instead of putting up with it as I have had to? Maybe I should have...and then people would be criticizing me for ignoring consensus and going rogue as well as for talking too much. Reverting Squamish people to Skwxwu7mesh (preferably diacriticalized) - because the RM was tainted - and using Category:Skwxwu7mesh by speedy change as a result, is the obvious, least ambiguous solution. Fielding a bunch of cumbersome workarounds to Usyvidi's uninformed unilateral re-creation/hijacking of a term that consensus had already decided was not to be used is "out of order". But somehow I'm the bad guy for pointing out other people's faults, and explaining why their "solutions" are really only "more complications".Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would you be willing to look at the subcats of Category:First Nations people, Category:Native American people by tribe, and Category:Indigenous people of the Americas? There are over 100 established "people" (singular) subcats for individual biography articles; the 2013 cfd discussion did not take this into account. There are many other ways the ethnic group category could be disambiguated from the town category. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
This retracted comment of yours - "the 2013 cfd discussion did not take this into account." is further proof to me that you did not really read the CfD, as that issue was front and centre from the start of the discussion; and you still don't get it that the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish people", in British Columbia, directly means "People from the town of Squamish". That I went and created Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia out of frustration with the difficulty at the time, doesn't mean that "Squamish people" doesn't primarily refer to "people from Squamish". And in Category:Native American people by tribe there were a number of FN categories that didn't belong there; I just removed them, and the Haida and Tsimshian categories are "Alaska Native" not "Native American". Linguistic chauvinism is rife on this matter and I'm often surprised to hear the parochialism justifying such mistaken usages coming from people who should know better (including the statement that they think that application of the Native American usage is fine - it's not). As for "there are other ways to disambiguate" there would be no need for disambiguation at all if the insistence on using the anglicized/bastardized name were abandoned and Category:Skwxwu7mesh and Category:Skwxwu7mesh people. There is no town called "Skwxwu7mesh". The "FOO people" issue was also why I opposed Kwami's sweeping adoption of " people" in his rampage across Canadian FN articles (e.g. Mi'kmaq is now Mi'kmaq people, the former is a disambiguation page now; I'm actually surprised given his chauvinism about anglicisms being "more common" that he didn't also change it to Micmac people). But it was definitely in the CfD discussion, and if I recall other examples of "FOO people" categories that were not "People of the FOO" were broughty up, or the prospect rationalized. Native American categories have the advantage of the term "tribe", which is not used the same way in Canada, so Category:Squamish tribe is not viable either (and would, in fact, if the Skwxwu7mesh were in the U.S., refer to the Squamish Nation government, i.e. the "tribe"). I believe the FOO people issue was also raised, and dispensed with, in the RM, or in follow-up discussions. So far the only other Canadian in this CfD, CambridgeBayWeather, has recognized and reaffirmed the unworkability of the term "Squamish", the rest of you seem oblivious to this point and are trying to find ways to rationalize its use when an alternative not only already exists, but was the initial state of this category and was come up with by a member of the group in question. And I am still non-plussed that someone from outside the area, with no knowledge of the topic nor any awareness at all of the high profile primarytopic-ness of "Squamish", has just gone ahead and ignored all prior process. If I had known it was that easy, then I'd just gone and created/used the de-diacriticalized Category:Skwxwu7mesh on my own, and to hell with consensus/procedure. Somewhere in the CfD, and mentioned in the RMs on St'at'imc or Secwepemc or Tsilhqot'in around the same time, there is an essay from a federal government consultant on the increasing use and acceptance of native-defined endonyms in Canada and how accommodations are increasingly made for them; I'll find that link, it's worth a read. Skwxwu7mesh doesn't have the currency/frequency of use that other endonyms now have (in fact, it's one of the only ones where the anglicism is still more common). The RM was flawed (and bigoted), the CfD was flawed and not just because of the FOO people issue being discounted, a category name now twice created by people who are not from BC and who just don't get the geographic context, and now specious arguments about consistency across categories are being advanced to justify the illegal hijacking of a category name mandated by process. "Consistency" and piecemeal, case-by-case application of "guidelines" by people wading into areas they are not qualified to comment on is how this disarray has come about; and all I am hearing is ways to suggest that some cumbersome alternative disambiguation, which will be anomalous in existing Canadian disambiguation patterns, will be come up with - anything but a version of the actual proper endonym. And imposed by decisions from colonizing countries, irrespective of what people in "the colony" think, and without any knowledge of or concern for the local geographic milieu/linguistic context ....patting us on the head and telling us they know best etc...but in doing so, you are entrenching the "Squamish=ethnic group" usage which Skwxu7mesh scholars and cultural activists are slowly replacing with their own choice of term. That the mainstream media ("reliable sources") are slow in catching onto this, despite their embrace of related terms (Sto:lo, St'at'imc, Tsleil-wau-tuth, Kwikwetlem) means that "COMMONNAME" cannot be invoked as it has been for the others buyt in retrenching the "Squamish" usage you are influencing the notion that the "people" usage is as much a PRIMARYTOPIC as the town is; and that's not the way things are; as noted somewhere else it's as if the argument were being made that Category:Ottawa was for the Odawa people. And yes, the equivalent to "Odawa" re "Ottawa" is "Skwxwu7msh" re "Squamish". I submit also I'm the only one around here who has half a handle on how to pronounce it.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1, your walls of text are nearly impossible to get through and understand, and are very likely to produce a WP:TLDR reaction in editors. What I can see, though, are what could be considered very close to personal attacks ("bigoted" RMs, calling editors "unqualified") and misunderstandings of policy ("Ilegal hijacking" of "mandated" category names). Please comment on the content and what you desire done here, concisely, not on other contributors or your presumptions of why they have made actions. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bigoted comments are there on Talk:Squamish people if you'd take time to read them....and yes, if someone doesn't understand local geography or the precedents and cultural contexts of aboriginally-preferred names over those imposed by outsiders, then they are "unqualified". And if "misunderstanding of policy" were so easily bypassed as re-creating a category that was deleted by CfD, then why don't we all just ignore CfD outcomes and just go on and create whatever we want? And re personal attacks, my alleged personality faults are regular fare around here, as if being voluble and excruciatingly detailed about correcting faulty logic/"facts" and bad examples were a personality fault. To me, making my style an excuse for ignoring what I have to say is just an excuse; and making an editor an issue in a decision is not in the guidelines, also.Skookum1 (talk)
The content here is clear -
(a)"Squamish" is not a workable category name for this people and had already been deleted,
(b)"Skwxwu7mesh" is available and is the preference of the original creator, who is an Expert in the field,
(c) other disambiguations such as Category:Squamish First Nations have been proposed despite being completely anomalous and at odds with both naming conventions and disambiguation conventions in WPCANADA and which also evince a lack of qualifications on Canadian indigenous topics/terminology
(d) other endonym categories which are not "MOSTCOMMON" remain in place (e.g. Category:Syilx, Category:Kainai right alongside those where the authentic endonym is the most common (despite claims from past opponents that, because they'd never heard them, they were not (Category:St'at'imc, Category:Ktunaxa etc). ::::::(e) endonym category names were chosen when this hierarchy began in order to avoid the glaring geographic confusions using t heir anglicisms would incur i.e. Shuswap, Lillooet, Chilcotin, etc.. That's the content, and I've repeated it in one form or another but apparently none of it has sunk in, with people making me the issue, and talking about a certain consistency (re FOO people) yet at teh same time referring to a category (FNs in BC) where the consistency is NOT about using anglicisms (Squamish) but embracing emerging endonyms (Skwxwu7mesh) so as to avoid the geographic clusterf**k that is caused otherwise
(f) Category:Squamish people for "people who are of the Squamish people" STILL has a namespace collision with the primary topic of that phrase "people from the town of Squamish", despite the existence of Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia, just as Category:Okanagan people is for "people from the Okanagan (region)" rather than "people who are of the Okanagan people"Category:Skwxwu7mesh people would not have this problem.Skookum1 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding part of your comment above I can get through...Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If the common name in English is something, then until that is replaced as the common name by the "own choice of term", the former is what should be used, not the latter. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below re WP:EXR and note the new sections in MOS about respecting the style set down by an article's original creator/principal author (in this case referring to the main article that precipitated the CfDS which created this mess and its creator User:OldManRivers. As far as consistency goes, also, there was a consistency in the prevailing use of authentic endonyms in the subcats of Category:First Nations in British Columbia and their main articles until this one got speedied by the result of an RM which was closed, faultily, within only seven days of its inception. At the time I was absent from Wikipedia and OMR had already "left the building", such that one participant User:Curtis Clark said "In this case, it seems that the editors who strongly supported "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" are either no longer around or else don't have this article on their watchlists." - and also My understanding from previous discussions, reinforced by Squamish Nation, is that some Sḵwx̱wú7mesh regard "Squamish" as offensive, because the name is part of a government that they regard as imposed and perhaps illegitimate. I don't know if any of the editors who held that view are still active. One of them I believe made the claim that "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" was used in English conversation and writing to distinguish the First Nation and its people from the imposed government., as if us no longer being active was a valid reason to disregard our inputs. And re these names as "style", note this quote from somewhere regarding changes to MOS "the Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."". This is not about "righting great wrongs" but recognizing current and emergent realities and the overwhelming problem that "Squamish" in Canada means the town, and that natives who are part of that group use "Skwxwu7mesh" to distinguish their people as such from their government and/or the town. (and there is a difference in pronunciation, even discounting the complex guttural-w, the vowel is very different). That this is now the academic standard, as googlesearches will demonstrate, is also being ignored here. And the disambiguation problem re the town is not going to go away by pretending it doesn't matter.Skookum1 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The catch is that, while I'm not the guy who goes around crying "it's only an essay", when an essay and policy are at odds, the policy must be given precedence. WP:EXR is an essay. WP:COMMONNAME is policy. As for the useage in Canada, whether or not that is true it's useage in the overall English language that must be considered; Wikipedia is not censored because some people find a term offensive. If WP:GHITS are being ignored it's because they're ghits and, therefore, to be taken with a grain of salt. And, once again, you are raining walls of text down on the page that most if not all editors will not read simply because they are impenetrable walls of text - your comments here are hurting your cause simply by their sheer size. Whether or not that is right, it's true. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"COMMONNAME" is not a hard and fast policy, as Lili Charlie pointed out in the CfD and also in some of the parallel RMs...not is speedy-changing a category name based on a controversial change to its main article (especially when that RM was tainted by bias and misunderstanding, and was closed in only seven days and seemed glad that those of us who supported the original name weren't around to disagree). If COMMONNAME doesn't work - and in this case the COMMONNAME meaning of "Squamish" is the TOWN, then alternatives have to be considered, and an6 conventions specirfic to the subject matter and on-the-ground reality (which is why, so far, Category:Wuikinuxv and Category:Syilx are what they are - partly because there are no useful alternatives).Skookum1 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read this essay from someone who worked in the Canadian federal government's translation service and also note WP:EXR re OldManRivers' role in creating these articles and categories and their titles. And here I'm quoting User:TheMightyQuill from the CfD: " This is not a matter of WP:COMMONNAME but of WP:EXR. Contributors who are citing from quality and recent secondary literature will naturally want to use the term cited in those works. You'll notice that both PhD theses cited in the article use the term Skwxwu7mesh in their English language titles. Choosing to ignore academic literature in favour of tradition and ignorance does a disservice to wikipedia." And here quoting User:LiliCharlie "To my mind the template {{Canadian English}} should be included on the talk pages and editnotices of the articles in the Category:Skwxwu7mesh to remind editors that British, American etc. usage is irrelevant. [sig]....Sorry, I forgot to mention that this should be done on grounds of strong national ties to the topic." though what she meant by "strong national ties" was the acceptability of native endonyms in Canadian English, and of Canadian English standards for "common name" vs what might yet be the common name in other parts of the anglosphere (e.g. "Red Indian" for aboriginal North American is still common in the UK).Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re "FOO people", note the following article names Haida people/Category:Haida, Sechelt people (was at Shishalh previously), no category yet, Saanich people (was at WSANEC with diacriticals originally, and note Category:Saanich would have the same namespace collision with local civil geography as Category:Squamishdoes...only moreso, Owekeeno people (was at Wuikinuxv, note category Category:Wuikinuxv, Tsimshian people (was at Tsimshian, not Category:Tsimshian, Sto:lo people note Category:Sto:lo....and so on, my point being that the FOO people problem has been exacerbated by needless addition of " people", and needn't have become an issue here if there hadn't been such pointed and chauvinistic hostility to the term Skwxwu7mesh as a "meaningless string" and "unpronounceable" as clearly on display on Talk:Squamish people including by those who took part in the vote to change that title. Other categories were not speedied similarly as noted in the previous list and other examples that could be provide. Also "FOO people" as an article title is VERY often about "people who are FOO", though this is not commonly the case in indigenous article titles (there are some out there, however). You want consistency? Acknowledge the informed opinion and consensus-of-the-time when the indigenous category structure was being developed to (a) use authentic endonyms for ethno articles, preferably not adding "people" as is often redundant (as it is in the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish case where "mish/mesh" means "people", or in Haida where the word itself means "people") (b) use anglicisms in government names unless those government names are in the indigenous form e.g. Tsilhqot'in National Government. This was mostly applied in Canada, and not just in BC, as in for example Washington State articles anglicisms remain for Muckleshoot, Samish etc. though a few "authentic" endonyms were moved to anglicisms Nooksack people being a case in point, because of the same bigoted "this is English wikipedia" nostrums such as were voiced on Talk:Squamish people. If the "FOO people" issue is to be central here, it has to be dealt with across the board, not in isolation; yes, in indigenous categories there is a sort-of standard (but no guideline) that "FOO people" is to be used for categories for people who are FOO; but there is also a sort-of-standard (if no guideline) in Category:First Nations to use the authentic endonym for category names even if those are not current or most common in English. Examples are Category:Kainai, nearly all of those in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, and various others; the common adoption of native-authentic category names where those are now most common in English e.g. Category:Mi'kmaq and Category:Tsuu T'ina ("most common" to those outside of Canada as a the Sarcee people). Note that in the other examples of endonym usage there is no risk of a collision with geographic/placename categories because those endonyms are in use to avoid such namespace collisions eg. re Chilcotin, Shuswap etc. Okanagan people was at Syilx until COMMONNAME was invoked, and even though the US spelling used at Colville is Okanogan that article name is what it is; but the category has remained, so far, at Category:Syilx. So should it be "anglicized" like Skwxwu7mesh->Squamish and become Category:Okanagan FOO, whatever might be used for FOO as Category:Okanagan people can't be used and Category:Okanagan tribe is not acceptable by Canadian naming standards (nor would be the USian spelling Category:Okanogan tribe.Skookum1 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re google results. The COMMONNAME shibboleth has been raised once again, so I ran a google check just now and though I'd already observed above that Skwxwu7mesh -wikipedia got 16,800 results.... I hadn't run a check on "Squamish people -wikipedia"....and gee golly gosh, I just did and there were only 4,740 results very much different than last year - indicating an increasing use of the authentic endonym as MOSTCOMMON. I haven't done any publication-specific searches but even in the Vancouver Sun we are likely to see more results than a year ago....partly because Dustin (OldManRivers) is becoming a public figure and speaker/teacher on Skwxwu7mesh culture/language/issues.Skookum1 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Skookum1. Over the years since I started editing/creating articles for BC geological/geographical features in 2006 (especially in the Squamish area) I have come to the conclusion that using "Squamish" to refer to the indigenous people is overly confusing and inappropriate. The Squamish category should be replaced with Category:Skwxwu7mesh. Volcanoguy 11:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: I see no reason not to at least have a disambiguation that indicates what each word is for. The tl;dr material above is not helping or clarifying and the personal attacks need to be ratcheted down. If Skwxwu7mesh is used, it is still wrong to eliminate "Squamish" because the idea of a category is to help people FIND things, and sympathetic as I am to the plight of ethnic groups to name themselves, no one is going to search for " Skwxwu7mesh" even if it is good for them to know that it's the correct name- and that debate is, at root, a debate over what the people themselves want to be called as balanced against legal names used by the Canadian government and such. Our opinions and the usual rules of what gets more Google hits isn't terribly helpful here, research is. Montanabw(talk) 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply People do not use categories to search with, they use the search window, which is why there is a disambiguation page at Squamish. In fact, I think it was me who made that page long ago, before I fully understood WPCANADA disambiguation practices for town names i.e. unique town names carry no comma-province disambiguation - Kamloops and Nanaimo; in retrospect I shouldn't have made the Squamish and Lillooet disambiguation pages; the Kamloops Indian Band is at least as notable as the Squamish Nation band government, and the Nanaimo Indian Band gave itself a more-native name in the form Snuneymuxw First Nation; the Chemainus Indian Band similarly uses a "nativized" version of that "English" name - Stz'uminus First Nation - so Chemainus is just for the town (note the parallelism of Chemainus/Stz'uminus and Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh; I could easily provide another dozen examples). If PRIMARYTOPIC and Canadian disambiguation practices are taken into account, perhaps I should have nominated an RM for Squamish, British Columbia to move it to Squamish, a conversion of Squamish to Squamish (disambiguation), and then....what for the aboriginal people, since "Squamish people" can't be used....oh, it can be for a main article name, but not for a category...but the upshot of that would be that a town article titled Squamish, which would be in fact using the Canadian standard as explained, means that Category:Squamish, British Columbia should be at (and perhaps it should) at Category:Squamish, given that the town is the PRIMARYTOPIC (by far and away).... yet all the while, the alternative, parallel to other BC aboriginal group titles, is available, but got railroaded by an RM full of people who denounced it for not being english, for not being pronounceable and so on.....whatever; my point in response to you is that people do not use categories to search by. But someone looking at a Vancouver article and seeing Category:Squamish at the bottom is going to think "this isn't in Squamish WTF?"...if they see Category:Skwxwu7mesh they'll go "what's that?" and have a look and learn something. Which I wish more people would do before playing name games about subjects they know nothing about. My bad for creating a disambiguation page when none was needed...especially once OldManRivers weighed in with his articles on his people and gave them titles that made sense within the world of the Skwxwu7mesh themselves...Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion with possible renaming Per Uyvsdi. We probably need both Skwxuwu7mesh and Squamish ("Nation"/"First Nation" and "people" for individual members of the nation). Exactly because as Skookum says they are not the same thing. And also because the general usage is to use "people" only to categorize articles about persons, i.e. not for abçrticles about ethnic groups.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re the "FOO people" argument as to why this case of "FOO" should be "FOO"....it's been presented as though Category:FOO people were always about "people who are FOO" and not anything else; I knew this to be not the case, but didn't have an example handy, I just found one Category:Chumash people, which varies from US norms which are usually "FOO tribe" or just plain "FOO" as also is often/generally the case in Canada.....The difference here is that there is no well-known town called "Chumash", so Category:Chumash is maybe workable. "Squamish" and "Squamish people" will always have a PRIMARYTOPIC that is the town, and not the people it is named for.Skookum1 (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment People complaining about my "walls of text" should be advised that within them are explanations of all the parallel examples within BC FN category names, and relevant comparisons to other nomenclature problems...... that people of this day and age have short attention spans and problems comprehending longer texts should not be an excuse to stay uninformed about relevant material/information. Is saying that a "personal attack" on such people? Attacking me for being long-winded and rambling when really I'm trying to be as thoroughly informative as possible is, to me, a personal attack, and I tire of hearing it. Comparisons to other examples in BC, and why "Skwxwu7mesh" FITS the existing standard in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, and why native endonyms were used in many cases because of conflict with PRIMARYTOPIC geographical terms, are what all those "walls of text" are about. The complexities of the issues at hand re all these categories do not bear up well broken up into point form; so many overlapping issues, and parallel examples. And if someone's ideas and actions can't be criticized without that being seen as a personal attack - how can faulty ideas, incorrect actions, and bad logic be corrected? By hugs and kisses? No, by criticism. By telling them why they are wrong; if they don't listen and remain obstinate about not wanting to hear the truths they don't want to know.....is that being thin-skinned and sensitive, or thick-skinned and stubborn? But instead of criticizing bad information, y'all are criticizing the person who is trying to explain why it is bad information.....and rejecting my ideas because I'm long-winded and tangential amounts to a personal attack, so watch how you toss around WP:NPA, and maybe you should look in the mirror. I'm trying to talk common sense about a well-known placename problem and of all the people here know the most about the town and the people, and being treated with snubbery for having to repeat things that should have only been needed to be said once. And demonized in the process for standing up for what I know is right and correct. NPA and TLNDR should not be used as reasons to ignore information relevant to the issue at hand, or to dismiss the person in the conversation who knows the most about the subjects under discussion. And perhaps if I hadn't been personally attacked, I wouldn't have perceived someone wading into a category issue where I have long been a known quantity as an effort to screw with me on my home turf...oh, but thinking like that is against WP:AGF.....but it's also WP:DUCK.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    • And even without the prior AGF and NPA violations against myself which, to me, seem to underlay the aggressive action taken with this category, that I was dismissed out of hand when I immediately explained to this category's re-creator that the PRIMARYTOPIC issue was overwhelming, she told me she was entitled to her opinion and that other editors must be heard from....that my immediate direct knowledge of the town and the people to her meant nothing i.e. what I had to say meant nothing to her.... being cynical about AGF, from someone who treated me with no such courtesy about something much less controversial, WP:SMUG seems to be in need of an essay. Reasonable discourse is not possible when someone refuses to accept what they are told about the subject matter, and digs their heels in hoping that others with similarly limited knowledge will support them. She has since changed her vote, and her defense of the indefensible, and would seem to be prepared to support Category:Skwxwu7mesh which I invited her to change her new category to....but noooo, too much fun watching me burn up my energy....this amounts to WP:BAIT..... whatever; I'm clearly upset at the bad results of previous RMs and CfDs here, and will not accept Category:Squamish for the ethnic group....to the point where if this goes to "no consensus" and that category name remains, I'll have to take it to ARBCOM or somewhere higher up so that common sense, rather than personal resentment against my writing style, will decide the day. This CfD should have never had to happen; but then the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish people RM should never have been closed in a short week, and its culturally biased votes should never have been listened to, either. And the CFDS which created the original Category:Squamish problem should never have been rammed through either. If the related WikiProjects (IPNA and Canada) had been notified instead of kept in the dark on both those cases, then we wouldn't be here today, having to go over the same issues again....and as per noted above, if this fails due to "no consensus" it's a violation of PRIMARYTOPIC and I'll consider other avenues, including an RM to strip the disambiguation from Squamish, British Columbia as it's a unique town name and shouldn't have been disambiguatd in the first place, and start using Category:Squamish for the town category - which is always how t hat title will be seen. And re what people will say about me "personally attacking" someone....I'm defending myself, not the one doing the attack...IMO the category-move itself was an attack, not the action of an innocent trying to fix a problem, but someone deliberately wanting a provocation...if there had been no history of personal insults and edit wars, then I would not have seen this as what it comes off as - covert aggression - in politics optics is everything, and there's no simple coincidences.....I was already told by this person to get out of where I don't belong and accused of few nasty things, and when I pointed out that was a personal attack rather than apologize, she denied.....and then out of the blue launches an ill-advised in uniformed cooptation of a controversial category title on my own home turf? No, no accident, there's no way this was innocent....and now here I am, pointing out how my own good faith was not just rejected and demeaned, and put in the corner and accused of personal attacks....because I'm telling it like it is. WP:DUCK is as important as WP:AGF. The "good faith" here would have been to accept my friendly information that the primarytopic of Squamish is the town, not the people, and that an indigenously friendly option is available...I was ignored and smugged and forced to start a CfD in which, as usual, my writing style has become the issue to the point where the facts and examples I'm forced to repeat are being denounced for being too long and wordy.....and while my own conduct is regularly criticized, including my criticisms of bad ideas and suspect actions, I'm not allowed to criticize anyone myself or it's a "personal attack". Drama? No, schoolyard bullying tactics, get someone to defend themselves and then complain to teacher about them being noisy.... Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple enough to have been offered an apology and an "oh, I'm sorry I didn't know" about the PRIMARYTOPIC issue with the town.....but no, "I want other editors to have their say" is really just code for "I don't care what you know or if you're right or not, that's not the point, the point is I want to see a fracas over this, which is why I moved it in the first place". Impugning other people's motives, you say? What about impugning mine?Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue of whether or not endonyms not known at wide in global English are acceptable has come up here again, as it did in the RM and the previous CfD, such that Category:Skwxwu7mesh or the Skwxwu7mesh article title should not be tolerated because the term is (a) not English (b) not pronounceable and (c) not well known enough and (d) there is an available anglicism supposedly usable (which, it the primary topic of that name were not a well-known town, might be OK). Yet, with WP:TNT in mind, there are lots of extant categories out there that were not similarly speedied to conform to someone's name-game with the main article; I've mentioned some of those in BC, though most of the Category:First Nations in British Columbia subcategory titles are regular fare in British Columbia and Canadian English now, some are not; in their own area, they are common and visible names..usually. Category:Syilx for the Okanagan people really has no alternative name available; Category:Wuikinuxv likewise, and any older spelling of that name is now being phased out, including in official circles; Category:Kaska Dena - Kaska people that means and Category:Dunneza (now being speedy CFDS'd to Category:Dane-zaa) are also not known "at large" in the anglosphere; but would be recognizable in their own turf, or in anyone working or reading in the field of FN politics or sociology etc. Category:Tli Cho, the main article for which is Tłı̨chǫ, is for a people most commonly known as the Dogrib; The people most commonly known in English as Chippewa or Ojibway are in Category:Ojibwe; with article titles it gets even farther off the course of "global English" and localized usages, used in English, are common fare - and which anglicism gets to be used? In the case of the Laich-kwil-tach, the vanguard of the Southern Kwakiutl, who are also known as the Weiwaikai, their various spellings are Lekwiltok, Yuculta and the long-most-common Euclataws (other than Weiwaikai, all the same word differently anglicized). The people for whom the Nakoda article exists are most commonly known as the Assiniboine or Stoney. Until the invention of the spelling St'at'imc, that people "most commonly called" (until lately) the Lillooet people spelled that term Stl'atl'imx, and historically that name was recorded as Slatliumh, which is really closest to the actual pronunciation. So which anglicization should prevail over teh wishes of the people themselves again? And why??

The idea that category names have to be in English, or be English-influenced versions of authentic native terms, just falls flat on its face; Category:Kwakawka'wakw cannot be Category:Kwakiutl, Category:Nuu-chah-nulth cannot be Category:Nootka, Category:Tsilhqot'in cannot be Category:Chilcotin, Category:Tsuu T'ina Nation cannot be Category:Sarcee (which is considered derisive), and how to anglicize Category:Dane-zaa/Dunneza but by "Beaver people" (or Wuikinuxv as "Rivers Inlet people" for that matter). Yet this is what is being asked Skwxwu7mesh - that the anglicized version "Squamish" be used, as more familiar or whatever, despite a primarytopic disambiguation problem of the first order (as would also be the case with Category:Comox, Category:Shuswap, Category:Lillooet and many more(all of those are regions as well as in two cases towns, note Category:Comox Valley, Category:Shuswap Country and Category:Lillooet Country). The overall convention in the ethno category hierarchy was to use authentic endonyms because (a) they are increasingly the norm, when not already the norm (b) namespace conflicts with notable/primarytopic geographic terms would be commonplace (c) the self-referential language of the peoples themselves should be respected, and names for them not imposed upon them....especially by people who don't really know anything about them. There's even a UN resolution about this kind of thing, which I quoted in either the old CfD or in one of the RMs caused by Kwami's reign of error last year. Skookum1 (talk)

As for Category:Squamish, by rights the Squamish disambiguation page should become Squamish (disambiguation) and the Squamish title become the page for what is now Squamish, British Columbia, and thereby Category:Squamish winds up being used for what indeed it is always most commonly going to be taken as meaning - the town. Not a disambiguation category, but the town's category. The same could be done for the disambiguation pages now Comox and Lillooet and various others cf. Kamloops vs Kamloops Indian Band and Okanagan vs Okanagan Indian Band or Okanagan people or Comox vs Comox First Nation or Comox people (who prefer btw K'omoks now; so far Category:K'omoks hasn't been created though there is a place for it.).....so how many overlapping RMs and resultant CfDs is it going to take to bring order to a disorder by someone acting piecemeal, without knowing the geographic or cultural contexts, when a simple solution is available and is in conformity with existing norms/conventions.... if the "FOO people" convention is to given as a rationale to strip Category:Squamish people of the "people" part is to be respected, then why is that convention more important than the one that mandated using the native-preferred endonyms, whether for article titles or category names; but the "it's not English and I can't pronounce it and it looks like gibberish" mentality won the too-quickly-closed RM, without examining any of the real word contexts or the conventions for respective category names and article titles.Skookum1 (talk)

If the main ethno category is Category:Skwxwu7mesh then the FOO people problem for "Squamish people" isn't even an issue as the "people who are" category will be Category:Skwxwu7mesh people. But saying that an anglicized version of an increasingly common authentic name is preferable over the native-preferred more-authentic one sets a precedent to argue for other anglicized versions of various other category names, and great complications ensue. Claiming that it is most common when the actual most common meaning of the same term is completely different is......well, just not workable. And to say that it cant' be used because it's "not English enough" is.....chauvinistic in the extreme, and brings to mind the phrase once said to the Canadian French - "speak white". Language is big politics in Canada, so are names and cultural identities; pretending that this can be decided only by wikipedia guidelines is disingenuous in the extreme. In the RM or one of the associated commentaries on Talk:Squamish people someone said that the political aspects of this have to be ignored and it decided impartially; but choosing "Squamish people" was inherently political, as were the arguments put up to justify it; as are some of the arguments I'm hearing here....you may not think your views have a political quotient or are prejudicial, but by insisting on them, they have become so. Examples of native endonym categories are rife, and any effort to anglicize them will fail utterly; and will come off like turning back the clock, and slapping re-emergent native societies/identities in the face with a colonialist backhand.Skookum1 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to say this again: your text walls are not helping. Anybody who looks at this is going to go WP:TLDR. And you are not assuming much good faith at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing except reparent Squamish people‎. Basically we have one category dab page and one category redirect page. Those are fine as is. No reason to read a book to decide on what needs doing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And probably salt since I don't think the underlying issues will go away. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Thereby salting a bad result which just entrench two bad decisions; the 7-day RM decided by "it's not English" chauvinism and a lack of concern for PRIMARYTOPIC and a CfD which entrenched the speedy-change based on main article title along which did not take into account the evident conventions in related parallel categories - there are a few other "FOO people" ethno categories, Category:Chumash people is/was one, but nearly all others avoid any "people"/"tribe" disambiguation....but then none have any confusion with a PRIMARYTOPIC that is different. As for "FOO people" in ethnic group categories, outside of indigenous topics it is widely used for ARTICLES about ethnic groups; it never was in indigenous topics until Kwami and certain others ran around adding "people" to the titles claiming a "naming convention" made him do it (which one he doesn't say, as he'd discounted and ignored the convention already in place which covered 99% of such articles, so he clearly didn't give pause to wonder why none of them had a "disambiguation" (people) when one was not needed). In another case, this entertaining edit war on the use of Mi'kmaq" dating to July 2013 is the result of the move of the main article from "Mi'kmaq" to "Mi'kmaq people" when (since the people are the primary topic) it didn't need to be moved at all. Again, his was moved by unilateral action without discussion, in this case so Kwami could create that dab page he insisted on which has since been redirected based on no policy at all; this was needlessly done across so many articles (NB is the same logic being used here to support "Squamish people" were being applied there the article and the category would be at "Micmac people")). And where are we now? At complaints that the explanation of why the current title is wrong, and what the parallel examples and related conventions is WP:TLDNR and a simplistic (if wrong) solution be mandated, and never mind the consequences or complications resulting. What this boils down to is the result of willy-nilly application of supposed conventions and guidelines out of context in a piecemeal fashion.....such that the result doesn't "fit" the real world, or even existing and evident at-work conventions or even PRIMARYTOPIC, but only reflects the failure of wiki procedure to think outside its own box. The native-preferred endonyms in the category names at Category:First Nations in British Columbia are all without "people" so far (until someone comes along to speedy-change Category:Syilx to Category:Okanagan people - untenable for similar PRIMARYTOPIC problem as is "Squamish/Squamish people" - or other main-article-kneejerk-reflex moves. They are also overwhelmingly not the "anglicized" forms (other than being de-diacriticalzed e.g. Sto:lo, St'at'imc, Nuxalk, and Sto:lo carries a special character just like Skwxwu7mesh would), and most of them are not common in "global English" though most are now common in Canadian English, particularly in BC). The logical resolution here, to avoid the PRIMARYTOPIC complication that doesn't seem to gel on any of you, and in accordance with existing category-name conventions in related hierarchies, is Skwxwu7mesh on both category and main article and respect the choices of the article's and category's creator as is now policy in MOS, i.e. when there is a dispute over style, defer to the original creator's usage. Overlapping guidelines applied willy-nilly and in isolation, without regard to parallel categories and articles, and without any regard for PRIMARYTOPIC/COMMONNAME conflicts, is what led us here; the original Category:First Nations in British Columbia names were established with those considerations in mind; trying to explain that very salient fact gets complaints that it taxes people's attention spans - and so simplistic solutions based on one guideline or one rationale are invoked to come up with an end result that remains out of step with existing conventions in the same topic area and also remains a major PRIMARYTOPIC problem within Canadian toponymy and common usages. The RM was a bad call - hastily concluded - and so was the previous CfD. To explain why, well, nobody has the patience to hear it out, so the pertinent facts and relevant logics get ignored once again and the case decided by people who don't want to know and who ignore people from the country /area in question (not just me) as to why the status quo isn't acceptable and why the endonym-solution is really the only tenable one.... Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment @Bushranger, how about accepting good faith that I know what I'm talking about on several counts here ("local expertise" being one), that the "walls of text" DO contain facts and logics worth understanding about this case, and that I'm not a bad person even I am long-winded in trying to counter the points being raised by others which, though terse and "easy to read", are full of holes both logicaal and factual. Sometimes to make an informed decision you actually have to be informed. but refusing to read relevant information provided isn't very.....helpful, is it?? That last post above is fairly terse by my standards, but because it has to cover more than an one issue at a time, you may consider it a "wall of text" and not deign to read it. Invoking TLDNR is contrary to WP:AGF and is, in fact, something like a personal attack. Treating me like my points have less weight than the points provided by people who have less background to talk about that I am trying to explain why they are wrong....means that the easy, though wrong, reasons are what you read and the meaningful and informative counter-reasons get ignored because they tax your concentration. Andd so the decision gets rendered by the input of (a) the half-informed, who already have demonstrated that they are ready to ignore reasons why their former decisions were wrong and (b) those with short attention spans who don't have the time or inclination to think deeply, or to learn about the subjects at hand whose fate they are deciding. You want AGF? Accept good faith that myself, Volcanoguy, CambridgeBayWeather, and that IP user who all understand that "Squamish" is not viable here, know what we're talking about; and also accept good faith that those of us who chose to use native-preferred endonyms when these categories were being created and organized did so for good reason - in no small part to avoid such geographic clusterf**kery as we're seeing here. Accept good faith means accepting someone wouldn't pour so much energy into explaining the background and consequences here if it weren't important. I'm sorry it can't be condensed into point form, or that Wikipedia guidelines have such a bad way of falling over each other when they collide and/or viewed/applied in isolation. Oh, shit, this is so long you'll consider it another "wall of text".......the lack of good faith I see around here is the way I get treated/regarded, which, incidentally, was even used as a reason in the previous CfD to not do what I recommended; and because my criticisms of other people's acttion and ideas were branded "attacking other editors" when really it was facts and mis-application of "policy" I was criticizing.. Because it was me recommending it, essentially, and I dared to criticize faulty thinking and ill-advised unilateral actions. So it's OK to attack Skookum1, even to deliberately ignore him, and it's OK to not accept good faith that he means well and knows his shit and has good reason to spend so much energy/verbiage on trying to explain WHY...and it's nice that he can be hobbled by branding anything he says as "too long did not read" or, if critical of past actions or current deliberations as flawed, chastising him on AGF and NPA for being critical of bad information and misguided policy....and so bad ideas get repeated, and I'm forced to repeat the reasons they are bad ideas....because people nowadays aren't capable of reading "wall of text" that aren't even a few hundred words long. YOu want good faith???? Show me some by taking the time to read what I've had to say, before this CfD gets decided by another person unfamiliar with the subjects it about, and who invokes one guideline or convention at the expense of many others, and with no respect for any complications caused by the outcome.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully accept that your knowledge is being offered in good faith. However saying that other editors are not going to read walls of text is not a "personal attack" but an advisory that that is just how things are, right or wrong. And yet in the above you are still failing to assume good faith and you have, in fact, made many comments attacking other editors, directly or indirectly (for instance, implying that other editors are not qualified to make decisions because they do not have the knowledge you do? That is, in fact, a violation of WP:CIVIL and could be taken as a WP:PA). What you need to do is NOT make accusations, comments, or statements about past discussions and how they were flawed, mistaken, bigoted, etc., and instead explain why in this discussion your desired outcome is the ideal one, because, right or wrong, the massive statements above, regardless of how accurate they are, will drive away most other editors due to their sheer size. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here you are inviting me to explain my case again, and cautioning me to do it briefer than before; and continue to make myself and my writing style the subject of discussion. Skookum1 does not know how to sit up and do tricks. Explain to me what it will take to persuade you of the rightness of using the distinctive ethnonym over the confusing placename-mirroring usage; what particular bits of fact or logic it will take. And saying I can't criticize the RM which precipitated this problem - pointing out that it was bigoted, and decided hastily, and that it was decided by people who didn't know the local geography or understand the primary topic issue (as is also, sigh, the case here)....that daring to point that out is "attacking other editors". And then there was the speedy cat change resulting from that RM, done by someone with no clue about the geographical implications/confusions, then the CfD of last year where the geographical problem was at least understood, but resistance to using the indigenous name - and my being its advocate being a stroke against it (making me the issue, not the facts) - led to the creation of a "FOO people" category title which somebody, again with no clue of the geographic or primarytopic issues, marched in and took the "people" off of, winding us back at square one, with all the same issues that nobody seems to want to deal with, and me being made the issue. And now you're asking me to repeat all my facts again, even though they're clear as day despite the verbiage, and that the fact that they failed to be understood and/or addressed in the RM, and in the previous CfD (at least in that CfD they were acknowledged; but I was made the issue as to why the better choice was not taken...and one of the reasons the lesser choice "Squamish people" I'd advocated against was because someone would come along and re-create "the Squamish problem" and sure enough, here we are, in a consensus process attended by people who don't get the issues, complaining about my writing style. It's not like I'm writing in Urdu or Icelandic...and it's not like I'm calling people names, I'm just pointing out when they were in error, and what facts/points they are missing in making the votes/decisions. And now, rather than ask me particular questions on the issues, you do what amounts to a personal attack on me, once again making me the issue, and asking me to repeat again what I already have explained for the umpteenth time........ do you not see the absurdity of all this? An informed local nominates a change to sensible outcome that makes sense on the local turf, others familiar with the country (CambridgeBayWeather, VolcanoGuy, the IP guy) agree with him; and yet the interlopers resist the obvious, distinct solution and start fielding new names, none of which fit with existing naming standards/conventions within First Nations titles or Canadian language usage; and I'm not allowed to point out why they are wrong because that is "attacking other editors"......and apparently responding to the attacks against my writing style being too much of a brain strain is also "criticizing other editors"; and here I am again, winding up having to refer to the history of this name problem and the RM and the CfD which should have been overturned as being flawed, but that's not allowed. So if I don't talk about that, I list of the points (and I have, though they're not 15 words a piece because they can't be) and explain examples relating to the different conventions (which takes verbiage), and all of what I say on those matters, and I get a critical post saying that nobody wants to read things they have no patience for...yet these same people want to take part in a decision....on facts and realities and conventions they don't know about, and because it's too much of a strain, don't want to stop and think about....and still presume to offer up "solutions" which aren't, and which will only cause more problems and set more bad precedents. And resisting, to the bitter end, the solution I propose that makes sense to the other Canadians here, that fits with naming conventions and indigenous sensitivities and modern cultural realities, doesn't have a complicated geographic confusion - refusing that because I'm being made the issue, not the problems arising from decisions being made by people who don't get the consequences of their lack of information/understanding; those bad choices and uninformed actions and their consequences are, according to you, something I can't address because criticizing other editors isn't allowed, even though those bad choices and uninformed actions are fundamental as to why we are here now. And instead of saying, "OK, Skookum1 I think these are the points you are making" and field some questions and or other possible solutions (there really aren't any), you want me to try again to distill something down for you I've said twenty times already. The Kafka-esque nature of this is beyond a comedy of errors into something like a nightmare.....me having to address those issues without being allowed how to address how Category:Squamish came into being twice and why (because the people who did that, in both cases, aren't from teh area and don't realize the implications, and that the RM was similarly decided by people not from the area and who openly stated they didn't care about the implications/consequences); those complications being WHY it was originally NOT created as teh aboriginal category, same as with other FNs in BC subcategories whose "English" versions have overwhelming geographic primary topics. Damn it's all of what I've said over again....because nobody is listening. Why? Because I write in sentence of longer than ten words?? Here's the points:
          • (1) The overwhelming geographic confusion and PRIMARYTOPIC issue concerning the town is why "Squamish" was never chosen as the original category name, and it's why it cannot remain what it is.
          • (2) The stripped-down form (de-diacriticalized) of the category-creator and subject-expert's choice Category:Skwxwu7mesh has no such geographic confusion, and is in harmony with other subcategories in the same hierarchy. It does exist in English usage, and examination of search results does show that it is increasing in usage, and is used to clearly distinguish also between the ethnic group and the town. Complaints that it is "not English enough" are not admissible, unless the same argument were to overturn Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Sto:lo and others into "more English" forms.
          • (3) category titles do not have to match the main article title (on that basis alone the speedy that first created this problem should have been immediately reverted). That being said, a fresh RM on the main article is in the offing (oh yay, more people wanting to make decisions without having to research the background and/or refusing listen to the person who does have the background but gets hamstrung because the issues and examples and conventions all take time to explain, but nobody has time to read and understand).
          • (4) The opening of MOS says straight out when there is an ongoing dispute over style, to defer to the original creator's choice of style. His was the diacriticalized form of the proposal before you now - but it's in skwxwu7mesh snichim, the "English" form of it is without the diacriticals, and those model has been followed with Category:St'at'imc and Category:Sto:lo which are the simplified, streamlined versions commonly seen in English media in British Columbia and beyond.
          • (5) the proposals seen above re disambiguations of the "Squamish" form are all flawed and anomalous in terms of wikipedia conventions on use of such terms i.e. "First Nation(s)" as a substitute for "Indians", and the construction "Squamish ethnic group" is anomalous; simplicity should be the goal here, and it's available, not more complications and more bad precedents using clumsy language which are against existing name conventions and category conventions.
          • (6) the premise that "Squamish" is the more common form and is "more English" is out of line, and like the main article-matching-category myth, is not a hard and fast policy. Exceptions can be made on various grounds including "strong national sentiment".
          • (7) continued imposition of naming decisions upon indigenous titles despite what indigenous authors of those articles prefer, by people not familiar with the subject matter or the geography, and more interested in guidelines (that themselves are contradictory and confused), is not going to encourage indigenous contributors to Wikipedia to contribute and improve content - and it has in fact driven away the reigning expert in the field of Skwxwu7mesh studies that we had on board.
        • So what else haven't I said to persuade you, or anybody, of why the "Squamish" title is untenable? (if anything should be used for the town) And to explain why proposed disambiguations of it, other than "people" are not workable, or even more confusing? The simple solution exists, it is indigenous-friendly, and is recognized by people familiar with the area as making a clear distinction....VolcanoGuy is on the mark....the absurdity of "he was a Squamish from Squamish" or "the Squamish [plural] didn't like the sewage proposal put forward by Squamish" are why it's not useful to continue to refer to members of the area's aboriginal ethnic group by the same name as the town. Which is why the term "Skwxwu7mesh" is in growing usage; in addition to its increasing use also being more culturally-sensitive/sophisticated by non-Skwxwu7mesh residents of the area, as per Canadian norms about respecting aboriginal choices of terminology (something that Wikipedia has yet to consider as policy, being too obsessed with its own guidelines as Holy Writ, as if they were unchangeable). I've been told google stats won't help here, so I'm not going to bother fielding them again.
        • A flawed and hasty RM, followed by a mindless speedy, and then an arduous near-miss CfD where Skwxwu7mesh was seen to be the better choice, but wasn't adopted and a FOO people-problem "solution" instituted; which someone else finally came along and applied one convention about category names and stripped the "people" disambiguation off of, arriving back at the result of the mindless must-match-the-main-article speedy. And despite people from the country in question who "get" the reasons for "Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish" being present, others from other countries who aren't familiar with that issue, or with Canadian aboriginal category conventions, start fielding proposals which will only cause more problems. The simple solution exists, albeit being advanced by a very complicated editor with a "writing disability" (since you aver that I 'need help'), but it is being resisted for.....what reasons again? And if those reasons are fielded, I'm not able to criticize their flaws without that being seen as "attacking other editors". This whole affair is like that parable about the group of blind men designing a horse and winding up making a camel. Rash decisions concerning this category name were made by people unfamiliar with the subject, more than once; guidelines were violated in the course of previous decisions, and long-standing conventions also ignored, that is not allowed to be discussed either.....so what is? If this very bad idea is retrenched by the outcome of this CfD, especially if "no consensus" is used to leave it in place, then my next steps will be a multiple RM to move the Squamish disambiguation page, which I created, to Squamish (disambiguation) and make the stand-alone Squamish title the town's title, which is in line with Canadian disambiguation practices for unique city/town names which are the primary topic, and thereby , given a successful results, making Category:Squamish the title for the town's category by default (Category:Squamish, British Columbia should never have been necessary to disambiguate in fact, so long as the ethno material had remained at Skwxwu7mesh...and then the ethnic group article, gee, well, if it's not at Skwxwu7mesh the only other possibility is Squamish people, and we're still where we are now. And all the procedures to get all that to happen will be attended and commented on by people from beyond who don't know the subject matter, and don't take the time to learn it, whether it's coming from me or from the actual background readings and citations about the subject. There's gotta be a guideline somewhere about how people taking part in consensus decisions should know something about the topic and/or take teh time to understand it, before commenting on or influencing the outcome. People who want to only cite wikipedia guidelines without reading or knowing the subjects being affected are not making informed decisions; they are invoking guidelines without thinking, and without knowing context or the subject matter...and then being stubborn about it. Point blank if they're too disinterested and without patience to read what I have to say, sure as shootin' they've already discounted reading about the subjects at issue, or even accepting at face value (good faith) that when somebody from teh area says "this name can't work, it has complications" that they are being truthful; instead they say "they want other editors to comment"...other editors like themselves, who don't know the subject matter, and don't want to take the time to come to terms with and understand it. If they're not patient with my summaries, they also weren't patient enough to read the background material but man, were they in a rush to apply a guideline. And operating under a strange immunity resulting from mis-application of NPA such that "criticizing ideas/actions of an editor is a personal attack". I hear a lot about AGF, but accepting MY good faith is something that seems to be a stretch... you're trying, but you're still making me the issue, and not dealing with the issues I present and try to articulate, but am told are "TLDR". TLDR is not a policy, it is an excuse.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues on the table - because my 'verbiage' will not be read, I am repeating the just-made point-form items as a separate comment; the interests of clarity here - clarity and viability of the result of this CfD - are of paramount interest to me. the failures of procedure so far are manifest and manifold, an opportunity here exists to "do the right thing" - not "do another wrong thing". A simple, clear solution is on the table; counterproposals I have previously criticized have been seen as "attacking other editors" so I will not repeat them, though they are alluded to below given the history of this category/article-name problem:
          • (1) The overwhelming geographic confusion and PRIMARYTOPIC issue concerning the town is why "Squamish" was never chosen as the original category name, and it's why it cannot remain what it is.
          • (2) The stripped-down form (de-diacriticalized) of the category-creator and subject-expert's choice Category:Skwxwu7mesh has no such geographic confusion, and is in harmony with other subcategories in the same hierarchy. It does exist in English usage, and examination of search results does show that it is increasing in usage, and is used to clearly distinguish also between the ethnic group and the town. Complaints that it is "not English enough" are not admissible, unless the same argument were to overturn Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth, Sto:lo and others into "more English" forms.
          • (3) category titles do not have to match the main article title (on that basis alone the speedy that first created this problem should have been immediately reverted). That being said, a fresh RM on the main article is in the offing (oh yay, more people wanting to make decisions without having to research the background and/or refusing listen to the person who does have the background but gets hamstrung because the issues and examples and conventions all take time to explain, but nobody has time to read and understand).
          • (4) The opening of MOS says straight out when there is an ongoing dispute over style, to defer to the original creator's choice of style. His was the diacriticalized form of the proposal before you now - but it's in skwxwu7mesh snichim, the "English" form of it is without the diacriticals, and those model has been followed with Category:St'at'imc and Category:Sto:lo which are the simplified, streamlined versions commonly seen in English media in British Columbia and beyond.
          • (5) the proposals seen above re disambiguations of the "Squamish" form are all flawed and anomalous in terms of wikipedia conventions on use of such terms i.e. "First Nation(s)" as a substitute for "Indians", and the construction "Squamish ethnic group" is anomalous; simplicity should be the goal here, and it's available, not more complications and more bad precedents using clumsy language which are against existing name conventions and category conventions.
          • (6) the premise that "Squamish" is the more common form and is "more English" is out of line, and like the main article-matching-category myth, is not a hard and fast policy. Exceptions can be made on various grounds including "strong national sentiment".
          • (7) continued imposition of naming decisions upon indigenous titles despite what indigenous authors of those articles prefer, by people not familiar with the subject matter or the geography, and more interested in guidelines (that themselves are contradictory and confused), is not going to encourage indigenous contributors to Wikipedia to contribute and improve content - and it has in fact driven away the reigning expert in the field of Skwxwu7mesh studies that we had on board.
          • (8) adding one more, to repeat that people familiar with the town and with indigenous realities and current Canadian English cultural-acceptance norms have already supported Category:Skwxwu7mesh as a desirable and useful solution.
            • (9) Because of the risk of verbiage complaints, I won't try to explain again the conventions and rationales of the various categories and naming conventions in Canadian and Canadian indigenous article/category issues that have been ignored by those not familiar with same, or who have said that none of that matters, that either global English should apply (where the primarytopic town is unknown, and the ethnic group familiar only to linguists) or that Wikipedia guidelines override any local realities or local usage requirements/necessities.
Someone with other ideas is welcome to posit them, but ideas fielded so far e.g. Category:Squamish First Nations are even more problematic than Category:Squamish, and if I'm not allowed to criticize bad ideas, well, what good is this place anyway? That bad ideas can't be criticized for fear of hurting someone's feelings is hardly the way to build an encyclopedia. Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varying my earlier proposal "(B)", keep Category:Skwxwu7mesh as the parent category for the topic currently at Squamish people, and create Category:Skwxwu7mesh people for individuals; make both Category:Squamish and Category:Squamish people into category disambiguation pages. Skookum1 and user:Johnpacklambert have not explained why they want to delete Category:Squamish rather than keep it as a category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two reasons (1) because nobody's going to "search" for "Category:Squamish"; and NB a category disambiguation page should include the two US-side peoples that get historically confused with the Skwxwu7mesh, namely the Skokomish and Suguamish (not sure if either has a category; and (2) the undisambiguated form of the category name, if anything, should be for what is now Category:Squamish, British Columbia, because being the primary topic and a unique city/town name, under Canadian disambiguation conventions it shouldn't have the comma-province disambiguation on it at all; what is now the Squamish disambiguation page - which *I* made, or expanded perhaps, I'd have to look in the edit history - should be Squamish (diambiguation) and what is at Squamish, British Columbia should be moved to "Squamish", period. Needless to say, an RM to move Squamish people to Skwxwu7mesh is in the offing (and I've asked OldManRivers to weigh in here, and at the RM at Talk:Stawamus which is not unrelated to the issues at hand here.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Point of Information Because it concerns all the same matters as what's being discussed here, and is in the offing also as a necessity as a reversion, and because the current name is why our category-name problem came into existence, I started an RM just now at Talk:Squamish_people#Requested_move_2. And repeating that OldManRivers has told me this morning he will be coming by with print citations he has; at first I'd asked him because of the RM at Talk:Stawamus but, as he's the creator of these articles and of the category, that new bit in MOS pertains to his input as original creator and principal author.Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Note also these RMs, which are not unrelated to what is at hand in this CfD and its related RM - Talk:Owekeeno people#Requested move and Talk:Stawamus#Requested move - and that the precedent needed in all such cases is the same; a guideline or some such is needed so we don't have the same go down at Senakw (more common though still obscure English name was Snauq) and Xway xway (which is currently diacriticalized but I'm fine with "anglicizing" that - it has other anglicizations including Qwhy-qwhy and other decidedly un-English names, but Xway xway is what you do see in the Vancouver media and in current publications when it's mentioned. A lot of other articles in Category:Squamish people are also up for knee-jerk anglicization (in Stawamus' case it's not supported by google, as explained there, even though the term is common - but not for the community, is the point) and that needs to be headed off at the past. A formal convention or guideline should come out of this CfD result and the results of those RMs, and last year's RMs which rescued the indigenous endonyms on half-a-dozen main ethno articles and headed off speedy cat-changes which would have been just as confusing as this one; I've proposed working up such a guideline before, it's been ignored or bypassed for whatever reason; but it's urgently needed to avoid any more hoo-hah and fiddling around with things better left as they are. I'm glad Category:Dunneza->[[:Category:Dane-zaa] went through as a speedy and with no fuss, but that was a compatibility-with-main-article issue; Category:Beaver people would be, to say the least, inviable and also subject to all kinds of jokes. Same with why, if there ever was a category for the Kainai, Category:Blood people would not work out so well....Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is it OK for wp:CfD insiders to routinely use wp:wall of text, but not for other participants? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa, I get the feeling that you ask a lot of rhetorical questions. Are you trying to prove a point, or do you really want to know the answer?
In this case, your comparison is rather flawed. Skookum1 has, by my rough count, posted over 91,883 bytes to this discussion since it began - sometimes in chunks of 3k,4k,5k or even 14k.
OTOH, the "wall of text" that you critiqued here was around 2,606 bytes of text (not including the large set of categories that had to be added).
The other "wall of text" that you critiqued here was around 2,000 bytes of text.
Both of these noms are slightly larger than normal, but neither would fit what I would call a "wall" of text.
But, my guess is, you don't really care much about the size of the "walls", you're just trying to make a jab at the CFD regulars. To what end? Perhaps @Good Olfactory:, one of our CFD leaders, or @The Bushranger: might have some thoughts to share?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last summer there was a long, drawn out discussion which resulted in not adopting a category name that had a 7 thrown in it. The situation has not changed, so I find it highly objectionable that we again see an attempt to force such, especially when it still involves attacking anyone who disagrees with the views of the proposer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection. Accusing me of "attacking" people when it's me that's being attacked (and my intelligence and expertise in this area and my patience) is getting to be so much of a refrain around here that it amounts to "making an editor the issue instead of the subject of debate". Needless to say I agree with Ottawahitech that TLDR about being used as ammo against me; but geez talk about WP:AGF and dismissing my efforts to have to RE-STATE things that keep on being ignored (like the PRIMARYTOPIC issue re the town, or the parallel categories that are also in "Not english" and more. Dragging out kiloybyte totals of my posts is really just an attack on my writing style and some kind of weird rationale to not read information that is being supplied to offset the half-baked ideas that get fielded to oppose "doing the right thing" . Fayenatic London, re last year's CfD which he almost approved Skwxwu7mesh as the outcome, for all the same reasons as are being heard again here; and now you wade back in with another personal attack on ME to try and prevent that happening. As for the chauvinism inherent in your statement "which resulted in not adopting a category name that had a 7 thrown in it" this isn't the only category out there with a special character in it (and that's not a seven, it's a glottal stop) cf Category:Sto:lo where no doubt you will object to the colon......even though, like the '7' in many terms, the colon in Sto:lo is a recognizable and common usage in Canadian English; and that there are no alternatives. You didn't have any problem with the old diacritical forms of Category:Sto:lo and Category:St'at'imc.....and in fact I'm surprised you don't object to the "non-english" use of the 'x' in Category:Gitxsan (cf usual "English" Gitksan or the reality that the /t'/ in St'at'imc is an [lh] sound. Or to the q-without-u in Category:Tsilhqot'in. Are you also going to insist that "must use English" upend all the other BC indigenous categories and supplant "Nootka" for "Nuu-chah-nulth" or "Kwakiutl" for "Kwakwaka'wakw" and "who cares what the aborigines say about it"? The parochialism I encounter in all these discussions is somewhere between shocking and disappointing, by the way. And me pointing that out will be bleated about as "personal attack" - if it's not possible to criticize ideas then what is the point of such "debates". You guys personally attack me all the time, yet complain about me attacking YOU for pointting out that you are WRONG.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is out of line with the name of the article, which is at Squamish people. The attempt to rename the article has been unanimously opposed. It would help if people could assume good faith in the discussions here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And all the points being raised there to oppose restitution of the long-standing convention for indigenous main article/category names are the same fallacies and misunderstandings and name-conflicts as were heard before and should have been ruled out of order. I filed that RM because that main article's RM-change is what mandated someone to feel compelled to speedy this category to the completely unworkable "Category:Squamish" - which is a simple fact that the other Canadians here recognize implicity and is lost on the rest of you. Dealing with main-article/category names in this area without reference to the context of other related articles and categories is madness; deciding things on a piecemeal basis, involving people who know neither the subject matter or the terrain/geography which is the other overwhelming factor behind why the original category name, and why the parallel category names are why they are - to avoid the very kind of geographic vs ethnographic confusion that we are seeing here. Well, some of us are seeing it, and we're also seeing determined laager-like opposition from, as Ottawahitech notes "the CfD Cabal". And this bit about "good faith" is rather insulting given the complete lack of good faith in response to the points of information and also old-consensus background I'm recounting, and the way I've been accused of making personal attacks when what I'm doing is criticizing fallacies, mis-understandings and trying to explain the background to these ethno categories/articles and why they were what they were, and the dangers of what will happen if this category-name is allowed to stand as precedent for the rest. All of you opponents are also not acknowledging that there are exceptions to all guidelines of various kinds and that guidelines are not rules, as was often pointed out in last year's RMs on related articles/categories (all those RMs if they had allowed "FOO people" impositions to stand would have resulted in category names even more screwed up than this one). There's GOOD REASON why the indigenous endonym should be used here and why it was in the first place; most objections to it are rooted in what I see as cultural chauvinism and also with a wave of the hand that emergent linguistic realities in Canadian English/society don't matter; yet even google hits indicate a shift in public usagee from "Squamish people" to "Skwxwu7mesh" in the last year......and for the record, while the current RM is "unanimously opposed" (via the usual "RM cabal" hangers-about) THIS CfD is NOT "unanimously opposed" and it has been shifting towards supporting Skwxwu7mesh as viable. And note also that category names do not have to match main article titles; though I did start that RM if anything as WP:POINT. Really it should have been for the Squamish title, currently a disambiguation page, to become the town's article per Canadian category name/disambiguation standards, and for Category:Squamish, British Columbia to be Category:Squamish; just as Category:Nanaimo is not for the Snuynexmuxw people (Snuneymuxw First Nation) and Category:Kamloops is not for the Kamloops band of the Secwepemc people, and Category:Okanagan is not for the Okanagan people (whose category, in case you feel a need to purge Wikipedia of "non-english" names, is Category:Syilx.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "not moved" closure of the parallel RM I started is disappointing but not surprising. The closer's allegation that "unanimous consensus is that the name most used in reliable English language sources is the appropriate article title." is patently false, as the support for my position above from the other Canadians here (which he did not bother to reference though I'd referred to it), and the google comparison of "Squamish people" vs "Skwxwu7mesh" now favours the latter; also closures are "supposed" to be by the merits of the points raised, NOT on "votes (WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy). On the still-open RM at Squamish, User:AjaxSmack makes a comparison with a Native American group and city named for them but USian naming conventions do not apply in Canada; US town articles do use state-disambiguations, unique town articles in Canada do not; his assertion that the people are equally as much referred to as PRIMARYTOPIC is not supported by the facts on the ground, and is disputed by the other Canadians in this group who know that the town IS the primary meaning of the usage. And because of the usual "wall of text" complaints against me, I will refer you to please read (and it's not TLDR) what I have to say about and quote from at WP:UCN, where items refuting the notion that COMMONNAME and RS are inviolable and ironclad, and respect for established conventions is affirmed as being needed to be observed in any name discussion and any evolution of new conventions. The issue of consistency within topic areas is also addressed by WP:UCN and this category, if it remains at its current location, will disregard the established convention of other titles in the same category. I will also comment here that I have heard from a Skwxwu7mesh person other than OldManRivers who finds it offensive that her people's name is being dictated from outside; she may choose to comment here, as I have invited her to (I'd asked her for more print citations re Sta7mes/Stawamus). It's all fine and dandy to say as Necrothesp said on the RM that's now closed that what the people want is not relevant to Wikipedia, but natives necessarily find such talk offensive and that systemic insensitivity to indigenous realities and history is not a pretty thing to find entrenched in Wikipedia so determinedly and bullheadedly; cases for exceptions exist in all guidelines, as I point out on my recent additions to the Stawamus/Sta7mes RM discussion which those of you with more-than-short attention spans who use length of a post as a reason to not give a @$#% what it says. That such people also are seemingly incapable of reading the WHOLE of a guideline (WP:UCN a case in point) is also apparently a TLDR issue; why read a whole guideline when you can just cherrypick one line of it as an unwavering edict from on high. All of the items I mention from UCN were part of the consensus discussions that established the convention that somehow nobody here is ready to acknowledge even existed, despite the obvious facts demonstrated by the other category and main article titles in this same topic area. If you want to cite guidelines, then read all of them and don't just knee-jerk "no" because it's simple to do so. This is not a simple issue and will not go away by totting up the "votes" of the naysayers.Skookum1 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1, I've tried to be helpful here, but you are steadily making it impossible to continue to assume good faith from your continued treatement of this issue as a battleground to crusade for "what's right" on this issue. speaking frankly, I'm not sure this discussion is closable as anything other than "no consensus" for the simple reason that your massive commentaries have utterly confused the issue. Speaking very frankly, this has, in fact, turned into an almost textbook example of bludgeoning.
In addition, the commet of yours directly above is inappropriate on three grounds: first, Wikipedia does not alter its content based on what someone, or anyone, finds "offensive". Doesn't matter if it's based on their religion, their secular beliefs, or what group of people they belong to. (I might also note that recruiting others to comment here may be considered a form of WP:MEATPUPPETRY.) If WP:CONSENSUS cannot be achieved for changing to their preferred term, then it won't be changed to that, period, full stop, end of line, and the way to achieve that consensus is emphatically not through the methods you have chosen to use here. Secondly, accusing other editors of having "more-than-short attention spans" violates WP:CIVIL and may well be considered a personal attack (and no, their saying that your arguments are too long to read does not); finally, the place to comment about what you believe to be an inappropriate closure of a WP:RM, which is what appears to have spurred the directly above commentary directly, is at Move Review, not WP:CFD. I would strongly suggest that at this point you drop the stick and allow the Wikipedia community to digest your statements and consider the issue (and, at this point, in no small part due to the aforementioned bludgeoning, this may not be settled without an WP:RFC.) - The Bushranger One ping only 10:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have withdrawn my "TLDR" response to your accusations, which are exaggerated and continue to make me the subject of this discussion, and not the things I have to say about the wrongful use of guidelines or the sorry history of this name debate. I will say, yes, of course an RM on this article's main topic is of course relevant to it, why shouldn't I have referred to or commented on it? It was a change to the long-standing main article title that precipitated this CfD and its predecessor to start with. Dealing with items affected by the same ill-advised use of guidelines is not helpful; the whole subject of the name convention spans many articles; dealing with them one-by-one makes no more sense than ignoring the naming conventions on the sister categories as is so pointedly and obviously the case. An RfC is to narrow, a move review focussed on only one article, though if it resolved in my favour would enable a speedy of this category back to where it belongs and makes sense at; more articles and categories will be subjected to ill-advised change, more frustrating procedures incurred; what's the point in explaining further? I've tried too often, only to be made the butt of accusations and complaints instead of having any of the issues I've raised....wasted air. Read the quotes from UCN on Talk:Stawamus, they apply here as well, and are seminal to any equitable outcome here; three of the five characteristics re being ignored here and there are other passages at UCN which were, in fact, what led to the use of native endonyms in BCFN ethno main articles. Complex realities do not boil down to simplistic solutions posed by shallow readings of Wikipedia guidelines; if no one has t ime to consider them, they shouldn't be "voting" here....Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One comment, among many needing rebuttal, in your "bludgeoning" of my above, is the invocation of NOTCENSORED, which I've heard before in the RMs last year, as if respecting someone's choice of terms vs what their oppressors labelled them as, is way off-base. This is not about censorship, the idea that t he native peoples' preferences should be taken into account, this is a matter of a people's dignity; insisting that sources which were the instruments of their colonization and cultural repression are more legitimate "reliable sources" than what they people themselves have to say about it, amounts to a WP:BLP issue. These are not museum pieces on shelves and in drawers, but living peoples and living cultures and not just ignoring them, but justifying ignoring them by throwing NOTCENSORED out as if censorship were the issue and saying "Wikipedia does not care what they think" - that's offensive. Invoking "reliable sources" that have persistently mis-named them or concocted adaptations which are not accurate ("Squamish" is not accurate; Skwxwu7mesh gives a better idea of the pronunciation and has no risk of confusion with the Skokomish or Suguamish). Conciseness, clarity and consistency within titles in the topic area are not well served by the current category name nor by the main article title, yet they are called for by WP:UCN including the bit about respecting conventions in place...re the failed RM, yes, I'll take to Move Review before it's "stale". Its COMMONNAME allegation, made int he close, is seriously flawed and defies all other parts of UCN. If I'm successful there, all of this CfD is moot because then a speedy is justified; whether I'll hear the same refrain (including NOTCENSORED) there remains to be seen. This is not, I repeat, about censorship; it is about dignity for living persons and their forebears who language was beaten out of them by the same forces being used as citations to retrench a name redolent of colonialism; a colonialism which is not dead...and indeed seems systemic within Wikipedia and not in small way, as it too clear from many posts and logics in this CfD and in the various RMs on similar name-issues.Skookum1 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but this is not, by any reasonable interpretation of WP:BLP a BLP issue. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • once again you cite a wiki maxim as though it applies when it does not (RIGHTGREATWRONGS), as as you also trotted out NOTCENSORED as if I was calling for censorship in any way. The reasons for the emergence and adoption of native-preferred endonyms and that they were created partly to distinguish from "white" placename adaptations were affirmed in the related main-article RM discussions last year, and were also part of the original consensus and convention that for some reason is ignored by opponents of my proposal, as if this category name were not anomalous relative to its sister categories; also despite all the flaunting of COMMONNAME and UE (and COMMONNAME does not even hold up on a google search, as I have demonstrated) were the other bits from UCN about consistency, prior consensus, exception where the name chosen is not that most present in reliable sources and more. Stop making me the issue and badgering me; it's you and others engaging in NPA while pointing the finger at me that have buried the relevant issues - in fact, that attacking me is being used over and over to ignore what I'm saying; I will return to quote the passages from UCN that I brought up on Talk:Stawamus#Requested move and why they are important here, and why COMMONNAME alone is not how this should be decided; repeatedly criticizing me for me responding to criticisms of me and alleging personal attacks when all I'm doing is showing up the fallacies and wrong thinking in the opposing positions; consistency and convention are important here....attacking me is irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I've been busy elsewhere, trying to correct bulk name-wreckage re "FOO people" articles by the score (this was one of the few where an RM was actually used to move it to that form), but in teh course of researching Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move, where a bulk RM is underway to correct countless titles which were needlessly changed from "FOO", and/or wantonly anglicized (Slavey people from Deh Cho, for example), I found this passage on the naming conventions for ethnicities and tribes, "How the group self-identifies should be considered." which completely puts the line here to the various incantations of "we don't care what the people call themselves", "what the people call themselves is irrelevant" and invocations of NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The rest of that line continues "If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." "Squamish" is not derogatory but it is disregarded as a corrupted anglicism, and is not as common as Lil'wat, St'at'imc, Sto:lo, Kwakwaka'wakw etc so those two sentences don't apply (though the figures are shifting towards Swkxwu7mesh, particularly if the search is limited to use within British Columbia). I've been meaning to come back with quotes from the general naming convention which apply here and which are invariably ignored by those trotting out cherry-picked sections from that guideline (apparently the bit from the just-quoted naming convention for ethnicities and tribes isn't something they bothered to read, or don't want to admit exists?), and also with quotes from last year's precedent-setting RMs, which are also being ignored despite their very clear results.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I happened to look at Category:Coast Salish tonight and it provides a very strong example of why the "FOO people" format for this ethno category is not viable; because a sister category is Category:Coast Salish people for "individuals of Coast Salish origin/descent" as per normal practice for "FOO people" categories, and immediately to the right of it is Category:Squamish people. That alone makes it fail the "conciseness" as being not just ambiguous but misleading and not consistent with other categories, not just the sister ethno categories in Category:First Nations in British Columbia but very clearly here also. Precision and conciseness mean that some form of "FOO" should be used - but "Squamish" obviously can't be it as explained (and ignored) repeatedly. As observed above "How the group self-identifies should be considered" MUST be taken into account re the resolution of this category's name; it cannot stay where it is because of numerous guidelines and various conflicting conventions. And that "self-identification" is "Skwxwu7mesh", which is also after the pattern of other ethno categories in BC. Doesn't matter how many votes based on false suppositions and mirepresentations and google searches there are, precision, conciseness and how the people refer to themselves when speaking English are what this should be decided/debated on....and don't anyone presume to weasel by saying that those are guidelines for article titles, not categories (on the bulk RM underway, it was stated "the categories don't matter" also, but here they obviously did or we wouldn't have this category name problem that we do.Skookum1 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouting at other editors is not the way to get them to listen to you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shouting"?? Criticizing their votes by references to guidelines they're ignoring is not "shouting". Criticism of logic/statements is not NPA (though people here are behaving as though it was, including you). And in case you missed it, let me repeat the line from the naming convention for indigenous peoples and tribes for you - ''How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." Yet that first sentence has obviously been ignored by those constant assertions that "what the people call themselves is irrelevant". And per the second sentence, it's clear by now that "Skwxwu7mesh" is used in English; and it does not qualify "commonly" with "most" and the reality of that is changing fast. Why not actually read guidelines and consider context, consistency with other similar categories (and conflicts/confusing with "FOO people" categories as obvious at Category:Coast Salish) instead of criticizing ME?Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re the speedy CfR which originally moved this from the endonym title I found this on CfD/CfDS just now:
    • C2C: A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. It does say also This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination. I've lobbied for such a convention, and it turns out last March such a naming convention was made WP:ETHNICGROUP#Self-identification but the must be overwhelmingly used within the tree part is clear evidence of the convention that was at work and stable until this category was messed with by RM. C2D says This applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename. If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply. which because of the "explicit consensus" at RM1, but the nomination there was tainted by bias, including calling Skwxwu7mesh "gibberish" and "unpronounceable" and should have been ruled out of order instead of tolerated; anti-native bias is all over the RM, but that it's in the nomination itself is....noxious. Lots of articles have non-standard uses of ASCII characters, e.g. Sto:lo, Deadmau5, UJ3RK5 and lots of titles are "unpronounceable" that don't even have them, eg. Sheshatshiu which is not "She shat shoe" but "Sheh-sheh-SHEE", or Kwakwaka'wakw which is "KWOW-kwowk" more or less. I submit, once again that this category is not in keeping with obvious conventions in this category tree, and it's the only in that has "FOO people" as its format.Skookum1 (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on passages from TITLE/CRITERIA/UCN
  • Comment Interesting what a closer reading of WP:UCN turns up than only COMMONNAME:
    • "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (emphasis mine)
      • Squamish people is obviously ambiguous in the extreme because of the PRIMARYTOPIC nature of the town-name within Canada. "People from Squamish" is the implication, which is why Usyvdi tried to re-create Category:Squamish, which had been set aside in last year's CfD for what are obvious reasons (to a Canadian, if us only). This is also why Ottawa people is at Odawa people and IMO should just be at Odawa.
    • These three points in the section (CRITERIA) where the five characteristics of titles are described:
      • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
        • the current title is NOT "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", rather it's confusing and in direct conflict with a town taht's well-known on the Canadian map; "Skwxwu7mesh" is very precise and totall umambiguous.
      • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
        • "Squamish people" is longer than necessary, if there were no town to confuse that with, that is; but there is, which is why "Skwxwu7mesh" (which is shorter by four characters and only one word) fulfills this criteria completely; and why endonyms were part of the "old consensus".....we read these passages, but apparently the crafters of the passage in NCLANG did not, or don't care about it. Well, one does enough that she moved the category because she didn't like the "FOO people" wording....
      • Consistency The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
        • Nothing could be clearer than what else in the Category:First Nations of British Columbia, both in terms of subcategories and article-names, as demonstrating such a pattern: the use of endonyms in standalone form (other than those a certain editor came along and wantonly added "people" to without discussion).
    • And while the wording here says "term", in our case it's a toponym and endonym:
      • "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above."
        • "The criteria listed above" being the Five Characteristics. Those criteria were not part of last year's RM the result of which moved this category to its current title; that RM was also tainted from the start because of the very evident bigotry of the proponent, who pronounced Skwxwu7mesh to be "gibberish" and "unpronounceable". There might have been one or two dissenting voices to it from people who knew about the town, but like Uysvdi, nobody else there cared, nor did the closer. The failure of the recent RM I launched was closed by counting "votes" even though many were seriously flawed and should have been qualitatively, not quantitatively, assessed. Consensus by the ill-informed is not a valid consensus. Skookum1 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
      • Clearly "Squamish people" has problems, and it's perfectly reasonable to choose the other that's available
    • "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent.
      • Gee, that would be the consensus evident in the other categories and titles parallel to this one, wouldn't it? "with respect to particular problems" re the geographic name problem is definitely one of those, and there was a previous consistency to Category:Sḵwxwú7mesh, other than its diacriticals and special characters, as was also the case at the time with Category:St'at'imc and Category:Sto:lo. The old category was not created by OldManRivers as I'd thought, but by User:Themightyquill (another Canadian btw), on on Feb 1 2007 and lasted six years before last years speedy move, likewise the main article was created on Jan 13 2007 by OMR and also lasted six years before a group of people hostile to native language names decided they couldn't stand seeing "gibberish" and "unpronounceable" names and ramrodded through last year's RM, which was closed in only seven days without anyone knowledgable about (a) the place or (b) the people being given a chance to comment.
    • " When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."
      • The above questions were not on the table at last year's RM, and were waved away during this one's. And though some might say indigenous Canadians and sympathizers are the "specialists" in question, and it's the interests of the former that should before those of "editors (RS/NCLANG/UCN/UE quoters and those who concocted them). It could be argued that the biased and uninformed group who moved this via last year's RM are among those readers whose interests should be of concern, but I submit that they are not representative of people likely to want to look up indigenous topics, and that the interests of indigenous readers need to be considered (as indeed someone saw fit to include when writing WP:ETHNICGROUP and the passages of WP:NCP it was lifted from, and was discussed on WikiProject Ethnic groups and IPNA and on WPCAnada and in fact also in teh WAshington and Oregon groups or articles in that area; but when we bring up indigenous sensitivity we get NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS thrown in our faces, and the pointedly specialist-written NCLANG touted, or WP:UE, as if such terms weren't part of modern English which they are. re that, on WP:UE it says clearly " it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English language sources, it can be considered to be an English language word or phrase". Skwxwu7mesh satisfies that; it's not globally common yet but it's sufficiently common in British Columbia to be recognizable; especially if you live in Skwxwu7mesh territory (theoretically almost allo of the City of Vancouver but definitely in North Vancouver, West Vancouver and Whistler - and Squamish of course.
    • " Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
      • This should be clear by now, i.e. the ambiguity of "Squamish", and was discussed and applied by members of the "old consensus" in the days of these articles/categories initial creation.
    • That's all for now, I'd been meaning to bring this quotes by a long time now but got caught up in other areas. Suffice to say that the"old consensus" which mandated and respected this category for six years has been ignored and shoved aside, though evidence of it remains across many more articles than just those in Category:First Nations in British Columbia. The former consensus should be respected, it says right in WP:TITLE and elsewhere; not derided and downgraded or by changing/creating guidelines to overrule/ignore it....yet we took into account all of the above and more....we were actually thoughtful about what we were doing, not knee-jerk one-guideline bootstompers, and inclusiveness for indigenous editors and readers was very much a concern; and it was Phaedriel who pointed out the Fifth Pillar "there are no rules", which is not what you get from people quoting guideline and "policy" without caring about the consequences of how they decide to use/abuse them.Skookum1 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skookum1,   please stop. it's time to call a spade a spade (which is, as a note, the bit of WP:Alphabetsoup you wanted when you mentioned WP:DUCK above): Whether or not you are 100% right, and whether or not everyone else (including me!) on this subject is 100% wrong, your editing on this subject in this section is disruptive. You have posted 133,572 characters of discussion in this one section alone, and you keep posting additional walls of text virtually a full week after anybody else has commented in the discussion (with the last person commenting previously in it being you). Again, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, what you have done is created the poster child for bludgeoning, and there is simply no way I can see that this can possibly be closed now as anything other than "No Consensus", even if you are 100% absolutely in the right, for the simple reason that your bludgeoning, personal attacks, and refusal to listen and drop the stick has made it impossible for anyone to have any sort of reasonable discussion on this issue. AGF is not a suicide pact; saying that others shouldn't be "making an editor the issue instead of the subject of debate" won't work when you've made it impossible for it to be otherwise. It doesn't matter how much of an expert you might be, or how right you might be, or how much of a Randy everyone else is, or how wrong they might be, you have managed to absolutley poison the well on this issue, and because of that, regardless of the result of this discussion, Wikipedia loses. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bushranger, I accept that Skookum's style can be trying at times, but please do not claim that he is alone in his perspective. He has given ample evidence that there are many of us knowledgeable editors who agree with him. I, for one, am tired of arguing with editors who refuse to acknowledge the ample evidence backing up our arguments. Eventually, I think you'll all come around and feel rather embarrassed about your current position, but in the mean time, if Skookum feels strong enough about the issue to continue pressing these points and so long as he remains polite in his argument, it hardly seems fair to dismiss him as beating a dead horse. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no such claim, and I won't be embarassed in the least because I have no position here other than the constant bludgeoning has made this a toxic editing environment, because the arguments being made have included ad hominems and violations of the five pillars from almost the very start. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you didn't make the dead horse claim? Come again?? And re the Five Pillars, you should take note of the fifth one "there are no rules" when someone tosses down a narrowly-interpreted guideline as if it were a hard and fast policy and inviolable. "We" in the days of the "old consensus" included that in our discussions, my opponents (harassers) should try it on for size sometime.... oh wait, they already break rules right and left (including ad hominems and unCIVIL and worse) while claiming they're enforcing them...oh well, so much for that comeback. BTW thanks Quill, I'm glad to see somebody's still out there that knows how to read things longer than 500 words. I will repeat, instead of ranting about what's wrong with my writing style (prolix admittedly), why don't you actually address the issues I raise???Skookum1 (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh so I can't even quote guidelines without being told to shut up? I kept my comments on each to a minimum and still get criticized for it. Those aren't walls of text, they're bulleted points. This is not bludgeoning this is quoting relevant guidelines that I said I would come back with. What poisoned the well here was last year's RM, and the action by Uysvdi re the Category:Squamish re-creation. If quoting guidelines directly is being unreasonable, then that's how Wikipidia loses, not because of me. Why don't you address the points I raised, instead of flogging the dead horse of criticizing me for my attention to detail??Skookum1 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This situation can still be resolved. There does seem to be some momentum to make Category:Squamish a disambiguation category (more helpful for a reader trying to navigate articles than salting), and to make Category:Squamish people a category for individual people. The loose end is what to call the category for the entire ethnic group/First Nation. Possibilities include Category:Squamish (ethnic group) or Category:Skwxwu7mesh, or perhaps another suggestion from other editors (if there's anyone left still following this discussion). -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Comment: I see no reason or consensus to delete the category disambiguation page which is now at Category:Squamish. For the people, I now favour adopting Category:Skwxwu7mesh and, for individuals, Category:Skwxwu7mesh people. See Squamish language for an explanation of the use of 7 for a glottal stop, and even a photo of it on a road sign. (However, I don't think it's necessary to go all the way with the use of other diacritics, even though they also appear on the road sign.) – Fayenatic London 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds completely doable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand 3D films

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep; incidentally, there are several more that can be added to the category. I will do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another seemingly useless category. Populated by one article and not itself a member of any other category. If it can't be populated, it should be deleted. Safiel (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Baseball players by team

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is scope to re-nominate some on a case by case basis. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The general WP:CONSENSUS among most other sports (most noticably football/footy/soccer, but also many others) is that when it comes to categorising by team, categories use the most recent name of the team, regardless of any previous names, and that previous names are category redirects to the current one. In these cases, this is in fact the case for most sorts of categories (for instance, Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays redirects to Category:Tampa Bay Rays), however these "Footown Bars players" categories have remained 'split out' by team name. Now, in some cases, this may be desirable - in cases there there was an intermediate period between incarnations of a team where it was not playing/did not exist, or in cases where a team changed cities (indeed, I have not nominated any of the latter, as "town played in" is highly WP:DEFINING). However in cases where the name of the team was the only thing that changed, categorising players seperately by the different names makes little sense; it makes it difficult for the reader, who may not know which name the team used when the player they are trying to find played for them ("Barfoo Ballplayer played for the Cubs, I know it!" "Um, ow, he played for the Orphans." "...who?!"), and leads to needless duplication of categories on players who played for the same team under multiple names. (The "Cincinatti Redlegs" would be perhaps the most ridiculous example of this, the name used only for a six-year period in the pre-free-agency era with the team known as the "Reds" both before and after.) Therefore, I believe that the encyclopedia would be improved by having these categories merged to the current team name in all cases; the reader is best served by having the players categorised in this fashion, with the players broken down by 'name the team used at the time' using lists. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It has been a practice to list the different iterations of the teams separately. Most Tampa Bay Devil Rays players never played for the Tampa Bay Rays and they shouldnt be in such a category. It makes little sense to combine them.Spanneraol (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a practice that wildly differs from virtually all other sports. How does it serve the reader to categorise players who played for the exact same team differently? How is it sensible to say that "Florida Marlins" and "Miami Marlins" players should be categorised seperately when the only thing that changed about the team was its name? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any other sports off the top of my head that had the same issue of teams not moving but changing their names. Most of these examples are all turn of the century teams and the name changes were usually done for some reason or another. To stay uniform across baseball players this should remain the same. Also it should be noted that Chicago Colts players is already a subcat of the Cubs players so that solves the confusion aspect you mention in your nomination. Spanneraol (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes the other sports' practice more "correct"? Maybe those sports should use the baseball practice. Or maybe it is ok for different sports to have different practices if the conensus within those projects are different. Personnly, I can see both sides of this. I certainly would not want to merge categories for different cities, but I am not sure name changes themeslevs need to be separate categories (and certainly not in the case of unofficial names like the various Brooklyn names. Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Players for the same team in the same city belong in the same category. - Eureka Lott 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think these categories serve as much purpose as categories for teams whose name changed due to a relocation. If the name is different, we should have a separate category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't feel too strongly either way on this, but I think that a blanket merge of all teams' nicknames would not be beneficial nor very encyclopedic. To say that White Stockings were the same as the Cubs would ignore their very distinct histories and eras. However, the Colts, Orphans, and Cubs are all basically derive from the transition of the franchise from the Cap Anson era, and could easily be merged. The early Brooklyn teams, on the other hand, don't have the same distinction, using many names (Atlantics, Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas) before settling on Dodgers, a variation of their unofficial nickname of the Trolley Dodgers. So merging all of them into the Brooklyn Dodgers makes sense. In my opinion, this should be a case by case basis. If uniformity is the goal, then I say keep it as it is.Neonblak talk - 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories relate to different eras of the clubs' history, and I see no purpose in erasing history. Far from impeding navigation, it actually helps. If a reader learns that player played for the Chicago Colts, they are much better served by a 91-article Category:Chicago Colts players than by lumping the Colts in with 1,711 Cubs.
    The concern about duplicate categorisation is misplaced. I just checked the Chicago Cubs and their predecessor teams. A total of about 2100 pages, but Catscan2 says only 32 are in 2 or more categories. WP:OC#OVERLAPPING refers to categories with "a large overlap", but in this case we have a trivial 1.5% of articles affected by overlap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These are all one club. We have consistently agreed that as long as it is the same club, we group everyone together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- One franchise: one category, but the obsolete names should be preserved as redirect categories, to prevent substantive re-creation. WE do exactly the same thing for alumni of merged or renamed colleges, universities etc. The fact that it covers the presnet team and predecessors should be covered in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I personally think it's crazy to have separate categories for the Devil Rays and the Rays. If a team re-locates, I can understand having separate categories. But when the team stays in the same city and changes only the name, category-wise we should just merge them. As noted, this is what we do with alumni and virtually every other situation where a name changes. Lists can do a job of sussing out the details. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The size issue could be used to split up some university categories. Considering the size of Michigan State University alumni, it would seem to make sense to split off Category:Michigan State College alumni, but we don't. The only place where we split alumni, such as Category:Brigham Young University alumni and Category:Brigham Young Academy alumni is where the institution itself significantly changed with the name change. However the change from BYA to BYU was not as abrupt as our category split implies, so I am actually not convinced that even in that case it makes sense to have two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Original characters and objects in The Lord of the Rings (film series)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This is mentioned below but is worth re-stating for emphasis: even if you think you know what the outcome of a discussion will be, please do not empty out a category prior to or during a nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contained only two articles, which I have depopulated and itself is not a member of any category. Not enough use to bother keeping. Safiel (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19&oldid=1142605939"