Category talk:Sto:lo

Name change for cat?

In building the Sts'Ailes stub just now I noticed that the article title for the main page is coded as "Stóːlō", but this category remains "Stó:lō". In general I oppose the use of non-anglo diacriticals in English-language documents, but granted this is becoming the norm in British Columbia aboriginal self-definition (imposing "foreign" characters on the English language...with no common orthographic system, either....). Just wondering if the category name shouldn't maybe jibe with the article-title name, i.e. this should be Category:Stóːlō, no?Skookum1 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was originally at Stó:lō but was unilaterally moved at one point, and the article and category were not updated. See Talk:Stóːlō#Undiscussed_page_move... Feel free to update them, but I'm not sure what's involved with changing category names. - TheMightyQuill 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, what do the sources use when discussing Stó:lō? DigitalC (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look through the sources used on these articles, but the MSM overhwelmingly refers to "Sto:lo", with minor appearances of Sto'lo and Stó:lo. English Wikipedia should use what the majority of english speakers would recognize. I don't think they would necessarily recognize Stóːlō. - DigitalC (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Sto:lo nation uses both Sto:lo and Stó:lô on their website which is an external link for the Sto:lo article; they more commonly use Stó:lô. The Sto:lo Tribal Council also uses both Sto:lo and Stó:lô.
• The BC government map linked from the Sto:lo article uses Stó:lō
  • I just looked Aug27 it says Stó:lo, without the overstrike on the second o but with the accent on the first.
• This external link uses Sto:lo
• Xaytem.ca uses Stó:lo
• An external link to the Seattle times (again MSM) uses Sto:lo.
• The links by Brian Thom use Stó:lo.
• stolotourism.ca uses Stó:lõ.
• A google search for "Stóːlō -wiki" link reveals that none of the first 50 hits appear to actually use Stóːlō

It appears the most common usage is Sto:lo, with Stó:lo also being common. The Stó:lô Nation uses both Sto:lo and Stó:lô to refer to itself, while I didn't see any other usage of Stó:lô. References used on Sto:lo have Stó:lō in their titles. Not a single use of Stóːlō was found. The article title and the category title should reflect common usage, and should be either Sto:lo or Stó:lo Neither the article nor that category should be named Stóːlō.

DigitalC (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The most common usage, as far as the general public goes, would be the press styleguides that mandate what usages people encounter in the the media, which is the most common exposure to the Sto:lo; and most often for ease of typography I'm pretty sure it's without any diacritials, other than the presence of the colon. BTW is the overstrike /ō/ really the same as the diphthong shown in the IPA? BTW my impression is that the overstrike o /ō/ form, without the accent on the first, is the second most common form, as it does turn up in some media and also of course around netspace; more than the full-form "pure Halqemeyelem" spelling; an issue with this is that Yugoslav and Czech and other names are presented with their proper diacriticals; unless big cities like Prague or Warsaw, where the English usage dominates in English; this was raised elsewhere I think i hteh Skwxwu7mesh debate a while back.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what the "proper" diacriticals are though? What is the proper lo for Sto:lo? is it lo? lõ? lō? lô? I think Sto:lo should probably be used, for ease of navigation, but more so because that is the most common usage. - DigitalC (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far it's only the two of us here, and we're in consensus on this. And I agree "who gets to decide what is correct?" There's a lot of jejune posturing in BC about nomenclature and it's strange to me to hear people advocating the use of spellings/characters specifically designed to demark the traditional languages from English, and then demanding the use of those characters in English, as if we are "wrong" (or stupid) for not using them; even though they were invented to not be a part of English. No other languages, also, make the concessions to indigenous-correctness that English does, e.g. Kwakiutl is still the norm in other languages for what we now (in BC, and pretty much BC only) refer to as the Kwakwaka'wakw, similarly Nuu-chah-nulth vs Nootka; on the other hand terms like Syilx are just not in circulation and so "Okanagan people" was the logical choice for that people-article. All such terms - Sto:lo, Kwakwaka'wakw, Nuu-chah-nulth - are deliberate modern coinages for peoples/areas that were not cohesive units in teh past, rather the extreme opposite; "Fraser River Salish/Fraser River Indians" was the long-time norm for hte Sto:lo, and I've even seen "Cowidgin" for all Coast Salish as a 19th Century usage. In some casess with these new names - Nuxalk and Sto:lo specifically- the names as given are in fact incorrect as reference to the people; Nuxalk'mx is the proper form for the people; what the Halqemeylem people ending is exactly I'm not sure but something like -mish, i.e. "Sto:lo" is only really the river name. It's as if we were referring to ourselves as "British Columbia" instead of "British Columbian". So who's correct? Since some of the "correct" names are not, in fact, either correct or genuinely traditional. Whoever's in charge of teh political/academic pursestrings, mostly; but in terms of wide general usage, the undiacritical forms seem the most obvious and also as noted the easiest to use....; btw I posted this at the REquested Moves page but it seems that's not the palce for category-name-changes, do you know where is the right palce to post this?Skookum1 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I* remember somewhere out there, probably on Talk:Shackan First Nation, someone protested that "Shackan" is wrong and the Nlaka'pamux/Scwx'exmx spelling "Sx'ex'nx" or something like that is "correct", as if it were correct in English and "Shackan" (which sounds a lot like Sx'ex'nx if you were to hear the latter) is "wrong".Skookum1 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sx'ex'nx" is Correct meaning Shackan in the Nlaka'pamux Language. According to Jim Toodlican Nlaka'pamux Linguist and can be supported by Mandy Jimmie - of whom both are Shackan Members.

That's irrelevant to the Sto:lo....Sx'ex'nx exists as an article btw.Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)