Talk:Fort Colvile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not adding BC history cat[edit]

I thought of this, but decided maybe it's unneeded; it would be better if there were a cat, subcat of the HBC cat guess, that was Category:Columbia District "instead" of Category:Oregon Country; really they're different but that's a longer discussion. Thing is this article should maybe be in Category:History of British Columbia because it's from an era before the British interests that became BC were Americanized, .e. the same way Fort Nisqually and Fort Vancouver are, or should be anyway...I won't bother right now, but it's a consideration someone else may choose to validate by nserting it. One factor concerning Colville and BC post-boundary is that the Colville Gold Rush drew a lot of the guys who had been on the Fraser and in the Cariboo and Big Bend and so on, back down across the line, whjch of course was very porous; as in notes on Talk:Columbia River about NPOV the hstory of the PacNW isback adn rforth and nterrelated....makes me wonder if there couldn't/shouldn't be a sub-sikiproject of the WA, BC, ID, OR, MT, AK, YT projects coordnating cross-border hstorical and geogrpahical and economic articles.Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different name origin elsewhere[edit]

I know that it was named after A. Colville, gbut FYI on Colville Indian Reservation they mention an American officer; I'll be back to check it's teh same Ft Colville under discussion; the other one struck me as wrong but I do wonder what it is and why it's there....Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in-depth resource[edit]

I found this on Fts Colville, Okanagan, Similkameen and Shepherd/Pend'Oreille on the Royal BC Museum's Living Landscapes project; lots of great detail.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lat/Lon coordinates are incorrect.[edit]

Listed Lat/Lon coordinates are for modern building named Fort Colville, not for the original location. Since this page is about an historical place, the coordinates should reflect that historical place. Marion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.8.199 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 to Fort Colvile. Only one editor opposed this, and didn't manage to convince anyone else that their argument had merit. Number 57 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Colville → Fort Colvile (Hudson Bay Company) – Numerous wiki pages are linking to the Hudson Bay Company Fort Colvile, when they really want to link to a not-currently existing Fort Colville (US Army) page. I'm drafting a Fort Colville (US Army) page, but keep finding wrong links to the Hudson Bay page. Additionally, I am requesting a change in spelling for the HBC fort. It was spelled Colvile (one L ) in all HBC documents. Americans added the second L to their fort's name, the valley's name, and the district's name. Even reliable source documents on the HBC Fort Colvile page, like the map, show the correct spelling of Colvile. The HBC wiki page has the correct spelling of Colvile. More importantly, the actual archives for the Hudson Bay Company are at the Manitoba Archives, http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/, and they only use Colvile. Srichart4 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it should be one or the other. If there's really only one L in Colvile, we don't need the "Hudson Bay Company" part, since there will be only one Fort Colvile, even if an article on the US fort is written. Dabdo (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "Fort Colvile", with no disambiguation. Capnotes on both pages should resolve any issues. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By my count that makes four "votes" for that proposal mine included (see below), three of them quite explicit, and none against except perhaps the nom. Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment before replacing with the USArmy article, please fix all incoming links that refer to the HBC fort. Also Fort Colville (U.S. Army) should be created as a redirect to the USArmy article. and Fort Colville (Hudson Bay Company) should exist as a redirect to the HBC article. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the HBC fort lasted for about 50 yrs while the USArmy one lasted about 20 yrs, and the HBC article says its an NRHP site. Is the USArmy base also an NRHP site? Seems like the HBC site is more like the primary topic if the USArmy base isn't an NRHP site. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving over the Fort Colvile redirect as per the sources. No diasmbiguation required. The US Army fort can then go here and hat notes provided. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this alternative proposal. A much better idea. Andrewa (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through 60 links or possible links for Fort Colville. Three links for the US fort used the HBC fort's years of existence, which I have changed. I changed 25 links from the HBC fort to the US fort. Some articles didn't have a link as the authors realized HBC Fort Colvile wasn't correct. I've added those links. The only connection between the two forts were joint get togethers for the Army and HBC personnel and the US-British boundary commission staff getting to together. I would like to see the change, because numerous books and documents get these two forts mixed up.Srichart4 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Examples of the use of Fort Colvile:

I could go on, but HBC spelled Colvile with one L. I understand the argument to change the spelling and not add Hudson Bay Company after, but I live in the county where both forts are located. I'm involved with several museums, and all the museums' staff use US or HBC Fort Colville to clarify what we mean. Considering how many links I changed, I'm pretty sure if we don't make the distinction, authors of articles unfamiliar with the area will grab the wrong one. Srichart4 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some will grab the wrong one whatever we do. But the solution to this is to have a hatnote on each, and the best way to reduce these misdirections if that is needed is to have redirects from the disambiguated names. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing this.
Let's not confuse the two issues here. The articles should both use the best spelling according to WP:AT, that's important and clear and should happen, and I think we have a strong consensus on it. One l or two. Simple enough.
So, the current title of this article is just plain wrong. Should be one l. Simple enough.
And once we do that, I doubt that a case can be made for further disambiguation. It hasn't been made so far IMO. Cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Andrewa (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely oppose I am breaking my current boycott/wikibreak to weigh in here, Fort Colville's role in history is too well-known to be changed to suit Wikipedia's guideline-interpretations; GoogleBooks does give single-l with 123,000 results, while double-l gets 94,500 results. However, many of those single-l citations are 19th Century, and more recent sources should prevail against older spellings; I note for example in the first cite on the latter page "Onikokano Lake" rather than, presumably Lake Okanagan. The quality of the sources, rather than quantity, should be the central issue. The namesake of the fort is in Wikipedia as Andrew Colville, and Colville, Washington and Colville Indian Reservation and other items on Colville use the double-l spelling, and of those in the region all derive from the double-l name of the fort. All this was debated long ago, when the title was chosen to be its current form, by wikipedians knowledgeable about Pacific Northwest history and geography; I recall also the discussion about whether the US Army fort and the HBC fort should have separate articles; where that went if to separation has since been merged, apparently, if that was the case. British and British Columbian sources should be given weight here, even though this is in Washington, as it was part of British imperial history before the US Army took it over and renamed it for one of their own (some officer named Colvile). Per Andrewa, the title is NOT wrong, it is the conventional title. Imposing a change by an ad hoc committee of Wikipedians to something not in wide use is a waste of Wikipedian energy and goodwill; the choice was made long ago, respect it. Have any of you opining on the title actually worked on this article, or read the sources looking for more than name-spellings??Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because Skookum1's objections seem fair enough, I think it would be appropriate to list the sources which support each spelling. Are there two distinct topics being discussed with two distinct spellings, or is there variation in spelling for one concept? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in reply to Bluerasberry: Skookum1's post ignores and/or violates and/or is contrary to so many Wikipedia policies that my first reaction was that it's a waste of time even trying to sort it out, and my second was that you seemed to have done so, and if you have it would be good for you to repost the valid and relevant points they have made, of course bearing in mind WP:NPA, WP:consensus and WP:AT (for a start), which means leaving out much of it. But on reflection I'm going to have a go myself at rephrasing the valid points I can see there... feel free to add to them. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha!' " ... ignores and/or violates and/or is contrary to so many Wikipedia policies" is invoking guidelines as if they were policies, and ignores the various riders and discretionary considerations in both policies and guidelines on such matters rather blatantly; there's even re sources a section in TITLE and elsewhere about how lower google-scored usages can outweigh more-common google results given good grounds. I've produced those, and instead all that the response is comes as readings from the Holy Book as if there were law. But that's the norm in Wikipedia, which is why more and more thoughtful people have grown weary of the place...and more and more it's left to people who seem more obsessed with guidelines-as-if-they-were-policies and thinking and acting rigidly, without consideration of reality as evidenced in (a) two different namesakes, (b) two different organizations, (c) modern usages derived from this name....and ignoring previous established consensus out-of-hand even though guidelines call for that to be taken into account. Yes, this was established as the title long ago (unless Fort Colvile sic got merged, which may have been the case; or a POV fork was avoided despite the two different topics (HBC and US Army). But that it was means that the former consensus should not be ignored without good cause. And raw numbers from unfiltered Googlesearches do NOT suffice. And before invoking the narrow view of the "policies" you invoke, go have a good detailed read of all of them, and note all the exceptions and discretions thatcome into play, or are supposed to. Mis-quoting guidelines and claiming they are policy is too common in Wikipedia; 95% of the time done by people who (a) don't know the topic well and (b) don't work on the article, other than on guideline-driven/yoked format tweaks. There's no good reason to change this title; and plenty of reasons to keep it the way it is. Lateral thinking was used by early Wikipedians; now their wise decisions, one after another, are tossed by the way side with readings from Holy Writ.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I don't think that Skookum1's completely oppose post above justifies the rejection of any move, which seems to be its gist. The fact that it's been discussed before is not a show-stopper, their opinion that those involved last time were better qualified than those involved this time is irrelevant, and the lack of a link to the previous discussion unhelpful.

But they do make some relevant points. More to follow, watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First issue: One l or two? That is, they argue that this article should have the double l, on the basis that more recent sources use it, although most still do not, even a majority of online seem to sources use the single l. So the question is simply, if we had no need to disambiguate, would we use one l or two here? This could be argued on the basis of usage, consistency with other articles, etc., it's quite a big topic in itself.

Second issue: Is there a primary meaning of Fort Colville with the double l, and if so what is it? This is an independent question, it's possible for example for the primary meaning of Fort Colville to be the HBC one even if the preferred spelling for the article title is Fort Colvile.

That will do for a start I think. A link to the previous discussion that Skookum1 says took place long ago would probably help. No sense reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia guidelines so often produce camels instead of horses it's really not worth commenting on, other than it's been said here again that "the guidelines" and "sources" mandate this. What's up is "MOSTCOMMON" and the reality (which is something Wikipedia guidelines don't deal well with) is that places and orgs with names derived from this fort use double-L; as does the namesake Andrew Colville's article.
Applying raw numbers of stats without discounting 19th Century publications vs the modern usages and MOSTCOMMON spellings of derived names.
But if you guys get your way, it will be yet another case of Wikipedia in-groups making decisions irrespective of reality, and without much knowledge of the topic of the article or the associated history and geography. If 19th Century US sources were used, Fraser River would be Frazier's River; the same is true here, whether British/BC/Canadian sources from the 19th Century are used, or American ones.
Thinking in terms of raw numbers of unfiltered Googlestats is "machine thinking".
    • and re Fort Colville as the HBC name of the fort, named for the company's director, vs the US Army spelling which is for some lieutenant or other whose name was spelled "Colvile", that was indeed the subject of whether or not there should be two articles instead of one; different function, actually different location (slightly), and a different namesake.
So it's either split the article or use the modern spelling that is echoed in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Colville, Washington and the Colville language, or invoke High and Holy Wikipedia Guidelines (as if they were policy, which they're not) and ignore the discretionary cautions in teh Five Characteristics in TITLE and other discretionary pointers in related guidelines and leave the title alone...and find more useful things to do with this article such as work on it. Name-games and guideline-tossing is one reason I "retired" recently.....but this one irks me because so much thought had been put into it originally by people who know regional history.Skookum1 (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this just won't do. A wall of text is not the way to build consensus. (And that last link, you may notice, is to a policy.) Andrewa (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
those aren't "walls of text"...those two separate paragraphs are barely 250 words each, if that; IMO you need reading lessons....your own post was more words, only you broke it into separate, individual sentences; I hear WoT (which is not a policy) thrown around along with TLDR (which isn't to be used for talkpages but is re articles only) that a lot from people who think/post simplistically and quote guidelines as if they were policy and who don't want to acknowledge or debate what's in the alleged WoT.
Then by referring to an actual policy (consensus) to justify the use of guidelines-as-if-they-were-policy to ignore valid and very relevant points is just more waffling and "criticizing the opponent" rather than addressing the points raised. Which are very simple:
          • 1) the article for the namesake of the HBC post is titled with two-Ls (Andrew Colville)
          • 2) placenames and other terms derived from the name of the HBC fort are all doubleL (I won't list them because they're in the "wall of text" that you refuse to acknowledge and want to scream about a policy violation about "consensus".....prior consensus, which as stood for years and which y'all here want to trashcan was that double-L was the necessary choice
          • 3) unfiltered google results are quantitative vs qualitative and without context and rely on the dominance of the no-archaic 19th Century usages...which may be repeated in 20th century writings quoting those sources.....but 19th Century English was very fluid and modifiable in extremis, particularly in this region, per placenames and also personal names. And that's why prior consensus went with the modern version of the spelling ,which is also used on Andrew Colville. or do you want to retitle that to Andrew Colvile??
and don't scream NPA/AGF for my telling you you need reading lessons, it's no different than you saying that because I oppose supposed consensus here that I'm in policy violation; attacking my writing style is clearly NPA, and not listening to what I have to say on the matter is AGF.
It seems that, as too often before, the tactic of criticizing someone instead of debating the issues raised by them is where this is going.Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article history, you haven't made one single edit to it but here you are advancing a position against prior consensus and weaseling about calling guidelines policies, and trotting out a policy which does not apply specifically here in any way.

I'm in the article history, clearly part of the community of editors who worked on this, which you are not, and instead of listening to my explanation of why the title is how it's been all t his time, you say my"lack of a link is unhelpful".

What's unhelpful is people who don't know the subject matter, who don't have any respect for prior consensus, to demand a link from someone who did edit the article and does know the history and related geography in question.

I'm part of consensus, too.... saying it's "unhelpful" for me to not have taken the time to dig around for the old discussion, which I was clearly part of, is AGF; using WoT to justify not paying attention to what I have to say about it is just weaseling.

I'm starting to remember why I've tried to quit; so many inanities, so many evasions, so many people who love rules and love imposing them without proper context, or even reading all of those guidelines, getting stubborn and wasting a whole lot of time/energy on a title.....and who haven't lifted a finger to actually improve the article.

And being faced with personal derisions and imputations and policy-invocations instead of dealing with th issues raised....all to change a long-stable and quite sensitive title. Instruction creepery instead of logic and respect.

If you change the title of this article it will be yet another example of a 'bad call" made by people who dnon't really care about content but only about bad readings of guidelines as if they were Holy Writ.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS and other search results[edit]

The official name as far as USGS/GNIS goes is clearly spelled with two Ls

And yes, I hear the "we don't do official names" horsetwaddle all the time; instead I hear invocations from the sea of wiki-guidelines to justify the irrelevant and nonsensical. "We don't do official names" comes off as "we don't do reality, we do guidelines disconnected from reality" instead. In many cases, it is official names, and the known-to-obvious, that have finally won the case at hand. funny about that huh?

More similar cites to come; and quotes from TITLE and SOURCES which, given that you think my short paragraphs were "walls of text" to try and dismiss what I have to say, you don't seem to have read; or you'd know that qualitative readings of sources, rather than bulk-numberism and unfiltered results, have validity even though you're intent on pushing your own view....by invoking guidelines you haven't fully read and are using out of context (as you just did with the sole policy mentioned so far WP:consensus...as if I and others who have worked on this article don't belong to consensus and should be shut out by the guideline-happy.Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The University of California Archives, which hosts the regionally-important Bancroft Collection, has three entries no matter whether you search for single-L or double-L....the same entries, and their descriptions are written up with double-L.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TITLE which is policy, there's:

  • 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. (those being the Five Characteristics, the most relevant of which here are:
    • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
    • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
    • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.
  • Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.
  • 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.

More from SOURCES in a while....though quoting wikipedia's guidelines/policies to people who quote them without having read or been thoughtful about what they have to say seems a redundant business to engage in; the HBC Archives I'll try and get to. But if someone won't read what I have to say, while accusing me of going against consensus while having gone against long-standing consensus themselves, doesn't seem much point.

I'm logging off as I never meant to get swept back up into Wikipedia's inanities and circular self-referential games again, nor meant to incite those who want to attack or deride me instead of discussing the matters at hand. I'll check back here in a few days maybe......but this is all too reminiscent of the reasons I have left before...more than once...only to check in months later to discover more "business as usual", aka "b.s. as usual"Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Once again, we see a close made by someone with no local historical or geographic knowledge making a bad call, and ignoring not just one editor but three; CBW did point out, and received support for - as had I also pointed out - that the US Army fort and the HBC one should be different articles. That the nom did not deign to that speaks to his single-mind on this, based on only the HBC's Manitoba Archives and their pre-1867 sources; dated references, in other words; modern histories of the region and many late 19th Century and throughout the 20th Century, use the double-L spelling (as does, again, the wiki article for the HBC governor whom the company's fort was named after).

  • My arguments had merit and were ignored and not commented on, other than to yabber about wikipedia guidelines, despite the many exceptions mandating a more rational rather than purely statistical analysis of search results. But what the hey, Wikipedia operates in its own world, doesn't care about the real world, and regularly uses "consensus" to dismiss informed opinion in favour of the uninformed and misinformed. What should have come of this is to split the article; instead the UK/Israeli-politics-oriented closer from the UK ignored me, my explanations of why this article had been named the way it was so long ago ("prior consensus" clearly having existed) and changed a long-standing stable title in favour of one with various complications and based on dated references, and was dismissive towards the dissenting vote, and ignored comments that the article should be split, without apparently reading the discussion, only skimming it.
  • The claim that it would be a "POV fork" should someone (me maybe, had I the time and inclination) to separate the American and HBC content into two separate articles, with the modern double-L spelling used in Fort Colville (Hudson's Bay Company) per normal modern usage, as opposed to archival usage (Manitobans don't generally keep up on what's up west of the Rockies). This is not the first time that a Brit with little knowledge of the matters at hand on North American topics has closed so recklessly and without due thought to the arguments made, dismissing them instead. As a matter of fact, British Isles-origin closes have rather consistently followed t his pattern...including when imposing British-isms on such matters as Canadian and American categories (e.g. Category:Power stations in Canada - power station is not the correct usage in North America, but it was deemed (by a consensus of Brits) that British English should be the Wikipedia standard). Here it's just ignorance of the region's history and of modern usages. And yes, this is a "rant" because it's needed; because the closer was wrong, as was the nom, and others than myself were also ignored. The RM/CfD system is hampered by such "external closes" from people without informed knowledge of the subject and modern usages.Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Colvile&oldid=1207272672"