Talk:Fort Fraser, British Columbia

File:Nechako reservoir.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nechako reservoir.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to retain the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Fort Fraser, British Columbia → Fort Fraser – Fort Fraser currently redirects here, I see there's a Fort Fraser in Florida on Fort Fraser (disambiguation) so a primary topic discussion should be part of this RM. WPCanada dab standards call for unique settlement names t o be undisambiguated; the dab page can of course be handled by a hatnote. Skookum1 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sorry no clear case that this Fort Fraser captures more than half of all references in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't know what parameters you used for that, even isolating to Google Books I got only 3 results for the fort in Florida via these search terms ""Fort Fraser, florida" -wikipedia -"british columbia""}, and [https://www.google.co.th/search?q=%22Fort+Fraser%22&oq=%22Fort+Fraser%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.5719j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Fort+Fraser%2C+British+Columbia%22+-wikipedia+-florida&tbm=bks 173 for Fort Fraser, British Columbia using parameters ""Fort Fraser, British Columbia" -wikipedia -florida". The only other thing I see show up is a children's playground in Fraser, Minnesota which of course is not notable (not that I know of).Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. No proof that there is a primary topic and Canadian disambiguation standards don't override the need to prove that there is a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Canadian perceptions/use of such placenames *is* of relevance, however; the googlebooks search above indicates how much more widely written about the BC Fort Fraser is than the one in Florida; you're welcome to try other searches to disprove that but I don't think you'll have much luck; Fort Fraser figures in all histories of the HBC and NWC including those published in the United States, and UK sources are unlikely to mention the one in Florida.Skookum1 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per in ictu oculi. As between the two Fort Frasiers (BC and FL), there is no apparent primary topic. Xoloz (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got to get going in real life today, I just got up, but I'll be back with view stats on this later. Fort Fraser BC is very historically notable and lots has been written about it re HBC history; Fort Fraser FL not so much.Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support The Florida town must have the state suffix per US naming conventions. It is then a case of decididing, which of the remaining two is the Fort Fraser that is the wp:primarytopic, the sternwheeler, or the British Columbia town. Having redirects of the type (X => (X (disambig)) is an abomination to be avoided, unless specifically mandated by conventions like the afore mentioned US naming conventions. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The sternwheeler is named for Fort Fraser BC, and is not a candidate for primarytopic nor relevant per WP:CSG#Places.Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Comment on bad close "Consensus" based on "votes" (WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy) from uninformed knee-jerk "no voters" - one of whom was not even capable of spelling either the Florida or BC placenames properly, is not consensus; particularly when the closer had personal issues with the nom, after blocking him (me) contrary to (um) consensus in an ANI at the time.

Victor falk makes sense, and realizes what CONCISENESS means, and the question of legitimate PRIMARTOPIC remains, and is obvious via any thorough understanding of google results, and of the fact that the BC place is highly historically notable, which the Florida place is NOT, and that the third item in the list is named after the BC place, which is indicative of the latter's prominence and notability. But expecting a closer who openly stated that a lack of expertise or knowledge qualifies her to make closes as "neutral" (which she is clearly not, given her behaviour towards the nom) by dint of ignorance of the subject, is an absurdity of the Wikipedia bureaucracy and its entrenched insiders who don't even comprehend the guidelines they cite.

A move review was not filed here for reasons of exasperation and exhaustion, but this is one of group of RMs closed by said admin which were anything but neutral or informed. I should have just listened to what I was told post facto by another WP:Canada editor to just have asked a Canadian admin to do the move instead of "respecting procedure", ie. I should have known better that logic would not prevail, and the primary topic dispute of the first "Oppose" is one of a host of similar oppose votes from the same insider-diehard, who provided no proof that it is NOT the primary topic. That vote, and this close, were personally hostile and part of a persistent pattern by both admins.

I didn't come back to Wikipedia after yet another "get me out of here" wikibreak to take on either of these two persistent Skookum1-haters, but getting a dab note on improvements to the BC article and the related material (Fort Fraser was a name attached to three adjacent places, and is a national historic site to boot. That I should have to "prove" that to people who didn't even read the articles or try a google is yet another absurdity of the Wiki-bureaucracy. Someone else can clean up Fort Fraser dabs on BC history articles, such as they may yet occur. RM and CfD guidelines should be rewritten to exclude closers with no knowledge of the subject being discussed, and no knowledge of national style guidelines, and who clearly do not have an understanding of what is or is not a primary topic. In that they would not look or think about that is yet another indication of the problem with RMs et al. being decided by those who stalk discussion forms looking for things to shoot down.

And don't chide me for AGF or NPA here, the refusal of this RM, and the knee-jerk initial "Oppose" by VW, were AGF and "tacitly NPA" to start with. Fort Fraser BC's name will turn up in scads of articles on BC and fur trade history; how prominent is Fort Fraser FL in terms of even state history, never mind national history? Not that someone in Ireland even knows, much less cares.Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of a WP:Worthless "vote" that should not be counted towards so-called "consensus" is "no clear evidence of primary topic, when GoogleBooks as provided shows only 3 results for the fort in Florida via these search terms ""Fort Fraser, florida" -wikipedia -"british columbia""}, and 173 for Fort Fraser, British Columbia using parameters ""Fort Fraser, British Columbia" -wikipedia -florida". But not that logic or fact has ever mattered in Wikipedia bureaucracy...not for a long time, anyways. Counting "garbage votes" of that kind is not "encyclopedic" and endorses obstinacy and perpetrates ignorance.Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)