Talk:Heiltsuk

Central Coast link

There was a link to Central Coast's disambiguation page. I was going to redirect to an appropriate Central Coast page, but none exists. Todd661 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:14, 12 March 2014 (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: Move. As with other similar moves recently, we have consensus for the people to be at the base name as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Though WP:NCL guideline recommends the former arrangement as noted, we seen to be seeing a new consensus that this should change to accord with PRIMARYTOPIC. As with the others, this will benefit from a more centralized discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Heiltsuk people → Heiltsuk – target page is dab page first converted into redirect by JorisV on June 8, 2011 then converted into dab page with no regard to PRIMARYTOPIC or UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. We have policy that the people should go at "XXX people" and the language at "XXX language", with "XXX" being a dab page, see WP:NCL. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"We" is not all of Wikipedia obviously, it's you, Kwami and Uysvdi and other NCL regulars concocting a bad guideline (which is not a "policy") that is in conflict with various others. WP:UNDAB has been ignored by all of you as has what WP:CRITERIA and WP:ETHNICGROUP have to say about this. The smugness in your suggestion for me to "try to change the guideline" in in a space dominated by the same small cabal of users, two - no three - have engaged in insults against me is beyond smug to the point of ridiculousness; an RfC may be required to change that guideline, as it's clear I'm shut out of any process involving that group of editors, who have been relentlessly contrarian and hostile to anything upsetting the applecart they carefully concocted to please themselves..and no one else.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title.

User:JorisvS, there is no policy that says any such thing as articles must be at "foo people" or "foo language". There are two guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Both of those guides support the un-disambiguated terms as does a policy, Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment a related RM is at Talk:Bella Bella, British Columbia#Requested move. I'll deal with Kwami's par-for-the course personal attack, as with other derisions elsewhere, through the proper channels.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion and a subsequent unanimous vote in favor of explicit disambiguation of people–language pairs. "Heiltsuk" can refer to both the people and the language, which means it falls under "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles". "Heiltsuk" was made a dab page in response to this guideline, only to be made a redirect later without discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that a template or just a copy-paste you're using to repeat your post across all these RMs? Hell I guess I'll copy paste to, since I'm replying to the same as-if-bot-generated comment. Here are view stats that debunk the premise that "people-language pairs" are a legitimate primarytopic equation, which is utter bunk:

• "Heiltsuk people" was viewed 547 times this month (March)
• "Heiltsuk language" was viewed 106 times this month

That's a more than 5:1 ratio....your premise that "people-language pairs" exist as equally primary topics is rubbish, and demonstrable over and over again; one of the many flawed in NCL. Next time your crew revises that guideline, you should learn some math first and actually look at stats and, oh, sources too....Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heiltsuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210195438/http://www.bellabella.net/ to http://www.bellabella.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)