Talk:Stó꞉lō

Content issues

There are emerging guidelines within the Indigenous peoples WikiProject that I have begun to apply across the board for BC First Nations. The main one is that there are different types of articles, even when their content and location/people may seem to overlap (I'll sign each section/paragraph so comments on specific points can be made easily: Skookum1 05:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ethno & Culture" articles

Not as loose as it sounds, despite having to describe it like this: "ethno/history/culture/peoples"

which this article, as titled, would fit into. These articles get Category:First Nations in British Columbia, with "First Nation" here meant in an ethnic sense, not in a governmental-org one. Ideally these will always be simply named, without "Nation" appended, as with Secwepemc and Nuu-chah-nulth - or Stó:lō (variable forms like Nuu-chah-nulth-aht can be redirects, although that term can include the Pacheedaht which normally wouldn't want to be called Nuu-chah-nulth).Skookum1 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Government articles

bands/First Nations, tribal councils, treaty groups) which have government-related content, ranging from chiefs and councillors, affiliations, treaty issues, modern demographics, economic and social issues, and so on These articles get Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia. In the case of the Stó:lō the main government article is going to be (created in a few minutes...): Stó:lō Nation, and will list all its subgovernments; "Indian Band" and "First Nation", sometimes just "Nation" are all interchangeable, although some bands seem to have a preference (at different times, given by variable content on various website sources); whatever is picked. Non-Indian Act-based governments can be and should described under different titles, either in the ethno type or in the history type (see below)Skookum1 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

language articles

'nuff said, but can be titled either in native language (St'at'imcets) or in the form Shuswap language; Wiki guidelines, it should be stressed, prefer the latter (use English, which is the language of the encyclopedia...). Some ethno and gov articles will have more than one language listed in their cats; some languages span more than one gov group, or in the case of the Sto:lo and Chehalis, two different ones. Cats for this are specialized in the linguistics hierarchy (examples later), but they should generally all take the relevant nation-category if there is one Category:Secwepemc, Category:Stó:lō, Category:Syilx etc.Skookum1 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Community/Reserve articles

Communities, reserves/IRs, towns that have significant native presence also; there is a difference, note, between the physical object of a reserve, and the band government that runs it; the descrption of the reserve is here, that of the government; even though this will not just overlap with the government articles but also the ethno/peoples ones; just interlink everything and it will sort of make sense; it's just a question of what was being searched for; the Scw'exmx and Spaxomin bands are all listed under Nicola Tribal Association, for instance; but the latter article is about the association, not about the communities; similarly, Shackan and Nooaitch are communities as well as reserves, but articles about them should focus on the community's particular history, not on overall Scw'exmx culture. In the case of the Sto:lo, there is another issue of "where to fit the Chehalis" as they are in the same cultural/language area, but they are not Sto:lo by organization or by their own appellation. Or the Tsleil-wau-tuth who are culturally Skxwxu7mesh but are part of the Sto:lo Nation (or were, last time I looked); so there's some confusing bits here and there.Skookum1 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mythology" articles

User:OldManRivers has pointed out the "mythology" articles and the cats that go with them; awkward wording/titling but in the absence of anything more workable, that's all there is for now. Discussion of this more later after I look around and see what there is.Skookum1 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

History/Biography articles

there is another sort-of category for specific history articles, e.g. Chilcotin War, Fraser Canyon War and various bio articles (Simon Gunanoot, Slumach, Klattasine etc.) where Category:First Nations history would be appropriate as well as either Category:First Nations leaders or Category:First Nations people; there's also different cats like Category:Conflicts in Canada which may apply, or Category:Wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America , which was specifically titled to allow inter-native wars as well as wars between native peoples and non-natives; and without the "Native American" wording that that category at one time had (changed thanks, in part, to insistence on finding a more suitable term stirred up by yours truly....). I haven't looked but I suspect there's probably a special legal case/law category for things like Delgamuukw v. Regina (note: Delgamuukw by itself, currently a redirect to the court case, should technically be about that particular chiefly lineage of the Gitxsan and its territory. Note:Category:First Nations is "top level" and is not ordinarly included with anything that's a subcategory of it, or a subcategory of one of its subcategories, which is any other category (usually) beginning with "First Nations" in its name.Skookum1 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Additions

I'm adding a bunch of stuff from Carlson's book. I don't know much about the subject, so a lot of this could be outdated garbage, but I figured it would be more likely for people to fix something bad than for them to write original prose themselves. Hopefully this will inspire people to add, expand and correct errors. - TheMightyQuill 10:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

T'xwelatse

No time to add this, and there's more news copy on it out there: I remember something in either the Sun or teh Straight, but posting this link here for later ref on T'xwelatse, the ancient ancestor-statue that was recently repatriated to Chilliwack from wherever in the US it had wound up.Skookum1 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are Stó:lō?

This is a recurrent problem as not all Halkomelem-"speaking" of either Upriver or Downriver dialects (Halqemeylem and Hunquminum) consider themselves Stó:lō, which is derived from the name of the Stó:lō Nation Tribal Council; mostly this is the Sts'Ailes but also, so far as I am aware, the Yale, Katzie, Kwantlen and other bands. "Fraser River Salish" was one proposed term, but I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the suitability of "Salish" is its origin is from the Flathead language; its nearest equivalent in a local language is the -mish ending on Skwxwu7mesh or Skokomish, meaning "people". Stó:lō is just the name of the Fraser River, not of an ethnicity (though, as noted, it's becoming standard for that); in Halqemeylem it's gonna be more like Stó:lō'mes - which might be acceptable as it simply means "people(s) of the Fraser River"...perhaps one reason the Chehalis/Sts'Ailes don't use it is they're not on the Fraser River...?? Anyway, anyone editing this page should bear in mind that its component communities constitute a larger group than those of the Stó:lō Nation, who are "Stó:lō proper".Skookum1 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move...

I'm not sure why the page was moved here, but if it's going to stay, we need to fix a lot of double-redirects, not to mention usage within the article itself. - TheMightyQuill 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a late followup, but I've added this and its cat to Requested Moves and Mergers on the Canada Wikiproject jsut now. Either this article reverts back to Stó:lõ, which is teh diacritical spelling used in the category name, or the diacriticals should be removed altogether; Sḵwx̱wú7mesh is affected by such a decision and even there a name change made taht /w_/ different from a previous version, and the cat got changed back from the one like the title to the previous but still-diacriticalised one).; AFAIK the first article/cat to use diacriticals in BC was the one for the Nuxalk. But this title is ridiculous - a special colon??? Bad enough that thte colon is not normally a phonene in English spellings of any kind; but a special colon?? Nope, especially when the catname uses the regular one. Properly, in Halqemeylem, "Stó:lõ" only means "river" (inferring the Fraser River) and "something like "Stó:lõ'mesh" would mean the people(s) ,but the convention is standalone "Stó:lõ"....but usually without the accent on the first /o/ or the super-line on the second. Fine for an article name, rotten to have to use as a catname.Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Stó:lõ'mesh" is not an actual word. The mesh ending doesn't apply to all Coast Salish languages, and by extension, doesn't include Halkomelem. Just FYI. :) OldManRivers (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

yes, I know, I just fielded it as "something like" - I don't know the "people" ending in Halqeymeylem - /-em/ maybe? Most or all Fraser Valley people-names don't seem to have it - Kwantlen, Katzie, Mstsqui, etc etc; I wasn't expecting it to be -mesh, just used it by way of comparison with Skwxwu7mesh (and Skokomish, Duwamish etc).Skookum1 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All of this would be greatly helped if First Nations politicians and re-educators/ideologues wouldn't make a big deal about imposing special spellings/orthographies on the English language; too late to stop the trend, but at some piont here in Wikipedia we've got to draw the line and stick with usable characters, not obscure ones preferred/invented by linguists and politicians.Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there other languages that do the same thing in Wikipedia though? Like European languages and such? From my understanding, the special spellings/orthographies are created as a way to write what was/is an oral language with no written form. If we tried to write these languages by spelling it out with the English phonetic alphabet, we would get 10 different interpretations. (Skokomish, Skwkwomesh, Sqwoh-kwo-mesh, Sqomic, ect.) It's unfortunate that there's such a wide array of phonetics alphabets used across such small distances (would of been easier for uniform spelling. Or at least, that's the idea I guess...haha). Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing with you. Merely just posing a question of whether there is a reason for it all. OldManRivers (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand about he linguistics community is how they could ignore the obvious phonological reality of the sprachbund, in which Wakashan and Coast Salish and Tsimshianic and even nearby Athapaskan languages share a common phoneme-pool, why a standard "cross-platform" adaptation of Roman characters was not come up with; and I can tell you straight out that St'at'imc was intentionally created to be "less English" than Stl'atl'imx (of all things), and the latter spelling remains preferred by some groups. The result is that "uneducated white people" wind up trying to say "Sta-tim-c" instead of "Stlatliumh" (which is how it's actually said). Sto:lo with diacriticals would make sense if those diacriticals meant anything to English readers; they don't; but the umlaut-U, c-cedilla and other "standard European diacriticals" ARE recognizable to most (nearly-educated) English readers; other European characters (as below) are not.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Diacriticals

I just spent twenty minutes changing the links to match the spellings in the target website; all had previously had the complicated Halqemeylem characters - the special colon and that useless space after it - which someone out there apparently feels is more "correct" than the usual and 'most common usage with no diacriticals other than the colon. The Sto:lo Nation does not use the diacriticals in its letterhead and I'm getting the sense that the "ethnographcially correct" spelling is connected to the Sto:lo Tribal Council, i.e. it's a political usage, therefore POV. Brian Thom uses only an accent on the first 'o', and does not use either th special colon or either of the two diacriticals seen on the second 'o' (circumflex or overstrike). There is NO WAY that the heavily diacriticalized form is the most common usage, and it's a given that it's hard to type. This is an English-language encyclopedia - we do not have titles for the Russia article in Cyrillic, nor China in hanzi. Yes, I'm sure there are Hungarian and Polish pages out there which haev accents on them; but we have Polish people instead of Polski - i.e. we don't use the Polish term or the Polish spelling; similarly the Wikipedia article for the Magyar people is Hungarian people, not "Magyarok)". To me the use of these diacriticals is meant to be political and culturally pretentious, as a way to say "you're not correct enough" - which is why "Staulo" was ditched soon after it replaced "Fraser River Indians" - it looks "too white". Which is POV and racist. I repeat this is an English-language encyclopedia, NOT a Halqemeylem one....Skookum1 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the above post. Didn't see this one.

Doesn't this mean that there isn't one general rule for all languages across the board? Some words, names, articles on English-Wikipedia do have diacritics in it from their respective language, and some don't. There's some instances where it exists, and some places it doesn't. That's why I'm starting to think the issue of articles related to indigenous peoples and the use of their language's diacritics should be discussed on it's own, instead of trying to relate to other examples or instances in English-language Wikipedia. Just a thought. OldManRivers (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference with those other articles is that the "usual suspects" as far as diacriticals go in English are very limited - the c-cedilla, the umlaut-U, sometimes the umlaut-e, the accent-grave and sometimes the accent-agule; letters such as the Icelandic "thorn" (which looks like a 'p' and stands for "th" as in "thin") and the crossed-d ("th" as in "the"), or the Norwegian/Danish slash-o - none are used in English and substitutes in some cases suffice (umlaut-u is rendered "ue" for instance); the Polish slash-l ("w") is known of but never rendered, e.g. Lech Walesa (well, I havent' looked at that article, maybe I'm wrong on that case). Circumlfex-o, overstrike-o, and colons made out of two triangles - there's no way those fall in the same category as diacriticals that occur regularly in English. What are common are English adaptations of "ethnically correct" diacriticals, such as the use of the regular ol' apostrophe in St'at'imc or the regular ol' colon in "Sto:lo", which is the "most common usage" (the deciding factor, which is why Hungarian people instead of Magyar, which is the correct term); and as noted there seems to be a political distinction as to who and whose publications use the "heavy diacriticals" - and the largest Sto:lo organization itself doesn't. MJy further issue is the purely mechanical one of easy-typing - unless anyone writing a Sto:lo-rrelated article is expected to come to this article, get the proper diacriticalized form in a cut-and-paste, then go to the other page and paste it there....likweise the category-name, which doesn't use the same diacriticals either (one uses the circumflex-o, the other uses the straightline-o; and as noted Brian Holm only uses the first accented "o", then the regular non-diacritical colon, and no marking at all on the final "o". Consistency, ease-of-use, and most common usage are teh factors I'm concerned with; the Halqemeylem-language use of these diacriticals properly belongs on teh Halkomelem page, and the diacriticalized forms are of course to be featured in the intro; but I think it's cumbersome, unweildy, and not reflective of common use to affect the "native spelling" throughout hte article; "Staulo" is itself a Halqemeylem word - but is not "politically acceptable" for reasons that remain unclear to me, when you peel away the rhetoric about it being "wrong". The old convention was Staulo, the modern convention is the un-diacriticalized Sto:lo - the difference with francais or Montreal is we're used to those "regular diacriticals" (which I'm too lazy to put in here at the moment, time to go get groceries...). So all that being said and done, where ya been? Out war-canoeing or dancing or both?Skookum1 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to all of the above, I made a post on the talkpage for Categories for discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dimestore ethnograpy

I know that "they were egalitarian...etc." is in various textbooks and fluff-pieces, but it's just not true. What else were si:yam (nobles) and commoners and slaves? Waht kind of poppycock is being taught in academia anyway? Citing incorrect sources does not make for good encyclopedism; uncritical placement of "dimestore ethnography" is not appropriate; also in the dimestore category is the loosey-goosey use of "Sto:lo Nation" especially with capital-N, as if it were a synonym for Sto:lo, which it's not. Also Sto:lo as a political designation includes the non-Fraser Tsleil-wau-tuth who aren't "ethnically Sto:lo" as wella ss teh remnants of teh slave-people Kway-quiht-lums (see the BCGNIS for Coquitlam). The Chehalis are also NOT Sto:lo, though in popular (mis-)conception they are treated that way. the Katzie-Kwantlent(-Kwa-quiht0-lum) relationship shoudl be explained and also the at-one-time unity of the Chilliwhyeuk, now broken up into a myriad of bands and also fractured between two tribal councils. The misconception presented by dimestore ethnographers is that this is a unified people, with a common history; they're not, it's not, and pretending it is is synthesis; it may be citable synthesis, but it's sitll syntehsis, as well as wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tense

The lead is in present tense. The article slips into past, then returns to present. If anyone cares, please fix.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's describing an existing culture, and its history. It makes sense to me that both present and past tense are used. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Colon trouble?

• This article will have access trouble if anyone sets up a new language wikipedia with language code Sto:. (This happened with the pop musician Ki:Theory, as the article link [[Ki:Theory]] means "page Theory on the Kikuyu Wikipedia".) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually maybe a brief note explaining the use of the colon could be added? Seems a bit unusual (but I don't know much)Feldercarb (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also Hunquminum/Downriver dialect

I was recently informed by User:OldManRivers that the Kwantlen, Katzie and Kwikwetlem language is the Downriver dialect; don't have a cite for that, just commenting as I'd noticed some of the recent IP changes.Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2013 (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 the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sto:lo people → Sto:lo – title has complicated history, having evolved from heavily-diacriticalized forms (at first Stó:lo then Stó:lō) vs the normal use of this common term in Canadian media, and by one tribal council and many bands without any (typically in print media it is used without "people" as is the case with most other Canadian endonyms here). Diacriticalized title was moved to current title by Kwami on Jan 1, 2011 citing English usage, though common English usage is without "people" attached. WP:UNDAB is clear on what should be done here IMO. Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 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) 12:41, 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 02:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Our guidelines say otherwise. I don't care either way, but turf wars are not productive. Should we have one guideline for American languages, and another for European? Or maybe one for Canada, and another for the US? Or one for BC and another for the rest of Canada? This should really be addressed in a central location. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Sto:lo is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:25, 22 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) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stó꞉lō/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

good start. Needs thorough expansion/revision --Skookum1 (6 May 06) Has been greatly expanded. Is well-cited, though only uses two sources. Needs more on the present situation of the Sto:lo, and an ethnobox --Miskwito 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 07:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sto:lo. 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/20070718061334/http://home.istar.ca:80/~bthom/LONGTERM-FIN.htm to http://home.istar.ca/~bthom/LONGTERM-FIN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

enough with the anti-intellectualism

this name change serves absolutely no purpose but to embolden the anti-diacritic crusaders who won't spend even 1/10 of a second to learn a new language.

even the naming convention acknowledges that "Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics", but in practice, the anti-diacritic crusaders on english wiki are as determined to wipe out as many diacritics as possible, as if diacritics were coronaviruses, as the anti-vaxxers who tried to blockade a vaccine clinic.

such anti-diacritic crusader culture make english wiki a fertile ground for anti-intellectualism, whether anyone likes it or not. 208.98.201.162 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. We name articles using WP:COMMONNAME. So if you can provide English-language sources that consistently use one spelling, we should move the article. Your rhetoric is unnecessary and self-defeating (particularly when you do not follow English rules of capitalization). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's been 10 years since the move. Did you ask Kwamikagami? I've never seen them as being anti-diacritics. Plus your comparison is totally ridiculous. The idea that you have to learn a language to use diacritics is is nonsense. I only speak English and use diacritics as appropriate. The wars over diacritics are long in the past in the areas I see. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva

Sorry if I pinged you twice Kwamikagami but I didn't sign correctly the first time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The diacritics are fine if that's normal usage, or if we're not following English usage. Although, objector failed to note that we were using punctuation rather than a proper length mark: it's Sto꞉lo, not Sto:lo. (Double click on the name and you'll see the difference in behaviour, at least on my browser. It also looks different in a proper font.) — kwami (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather and Kwamikagami: Apologies for causing any confusions. My intended meaning is not that "one has to learn a language to use diacritics", but "one has to learn a language to come up with a trustworthy argument in favour of purging diacritics indiscriminately". Non-users of a language should listen to entry-level user, and entry-level users should listen to native users, not the other way around. Why? Because Wikipedia:Competence is required. Below are a few references:

• Stó꞉lō Nation
• Stó꞉lō Tourism
• Stó꞉lō Library & Archives/Repository
• Stó:lō Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association
• S’ólh Téméxw (Stó:lō) (Native-Lands.ca)
• Set in Stone: Stó:lō ancestors' spirits live in Fraser Valley landmarks (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Agency: Stó:lō Nation Society (Health Link BC)
• STÓ:LŌCONNECT: A DIGITAL SYSTEM SUPPORTING STÓ:LŌ HERITAGE, LAND, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP (University of British Columbia)
• Stó:lō Resource Centre (Tourism Chilliwack)

Amongst the existing references (which are all in English, unless someone believes that one non-English words renders the entire reference non-English), "Stó:lō" is the most common orthography with diacritics, and that's what I believe that this article must be renamed to. Whether the length mark would be "꞉", ":", or "ː", can be debated further, but purging the "´" and the "¯" was not justifiable. 208.98.201.162 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick search, and 9 of the 10 books I checked used "Sto꞉lo" without the diacritics, one used "Stó꞉lō". Adding a couple more, I got it up to 3 "Stó꞉lō" -- out of a dozen. It's like Hawaiian names, where ppl often use the 'okina but not the macron. Given that, I don't see the need to move the page. I think it might be a legibility issue: English-speakers are used to apostrophes and colons, so those aren't an issue. But if you create a sea of diacritics over a word, a lot of people are going to give up. You could call that 'anti-intellectual', but I see it more as an accessibility issue. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS addressed the accessibility issue by mandating redirections. Redirecting Sto꞉lo or even Stolo to Stó꞉lō is as easy as one two three. Like the old adage said, "Where there's a will, there's a way". If Mount McKinley could be renamed to Denali, Sto꞉lo can be renamed to Stó꞉lō. 208.98.201.162 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

But Sto꞉lo hasn't been renamed Stó꞉lō. That's just a different rendering of the same name. And by 'accessibility' I don't mean searching, I mean reading. Too many diacritics and people start skipping the word entirely. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)