Talk:Swinomish people

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. The nomination was based on the essay WP:UNDAB. That essay reflects one view of policy, but it is neither a policy nor a guideline.
The nomination also asserted that the people are the primary topic when compared with the eponymous river, on which there is no article. Another editor pointed out that there is a Swinomish Channel, but no evidence was supplied to support the proposition that one or other of them is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
The other rationale offered was that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) supports the proposed new name, but since it also supports the current name, that is no reason to change.
If a future discussion applies the policy-based tests of a primary topic, it may reach a different conclusion to this discussion, but it is not a closer's role to conduct and present the research. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swinomish people → Swinomish – target is redirect to current title, first created as a two-line dab with one item a redlink by 64.40.60.5 on Sept 24 2003 then converted to redirect to "Swinomish (tribe)" by Agent86 on Jan 3 2007, citing "no article ever created on the river and does not seem to be of any significance that an article will be made anytime soon)". Not that Swinomish River will never exist, but as with many other cases, rivers named for a people are rarely, if ever, more of a primarytopic than their namesake. Then moved by Kwami to "Swinomish tribe" on Dec 13 2010, then moved by myself to current title Jan 6 2011 (I did not have the option of moving it to Swinomish because of the existing redirect. As with others of this kind WP:UNDAB should be observed. Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, there is no Swinomish River. There is a Swinomish Channel, at the page. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WP:UNDAB applies anyway re "FOO whatever" titles not being as primary as "FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid WP:UNDAB applies to nothing and probably should be moved to an individual user sandbox. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It articulates "precision" and "conciseness" on CRITERIA and IMO its details on that should be integrated into WP:CRITERIA.Skookum1 (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"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) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unCIVIL and BAITing as always huh? I'm tired of copy-pasting replies to your repetitive irrational defenses of your moves; anyone who cares can read my reply to your same post on Tlingit people. You want a centralized discussion huh? Yeah, we'll see about that; the premature WP:BATHWATER non-admin closure of the bulk RMs is gonna be at MoveReview; they should get relisted, especially the redirects-to-current-title ones I have done one-by-one as recommended by someone on those RMs per procedural opposition re the bulk RM who said they should have been filed separately. YOU were the one who was disruptive by doing a "multitude" of undiscussed moves - far more than I have yet filed RMs for. "no one would accuse you of being irrational" is a rank NPA, but I'm used to that from you from last years' RMs. Your "repetitive irrational defenses" of your undiscussed moves, so clear on last year's RMs, is the issue here, not my efforts to correct those back their original didn't-need-changing forms....hell, you just changed titles and didn't even fix ledes as you're supposed to when moving pages; or is that another guideline you prefer to ignore because it doesn't suit your "prejudices"Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current title is stable and unambiguous. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- And totally unnecessary...... "people who are Swinomish" is the implication; there being nothing other than Swinomish Channel with this name there is no need for any kind of disambiguation, and you yourself have said in discussions that "FOO" and "FOO people" are both acceptable, and "FOO" is fine in some cases; I can't find that at the moment, I read it in the course of investigating Labbattblueboy's claim that WP:ETHNICGROUP is invalid. Unnecessary disambiguation is proscribed in CRITERIA and in TITLE, which though UNDAB is only an essay (for now) it spells that out explicitly. The native titles were "stable" from 2006 to 2011, until Kwami started messing with them.Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Swinomish is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 17:18, 30 March 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.