Talk:Sts'ailes people

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: no consensus, so by default the page is not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Sts'Ailes people → Sts'Ailes – the target is a redirect back to its current title, moved/created by Kwami on June 7, 2010. The opening line indicates the nature of the usage of such endonyms, "the Sts'Ailes are a First Nations people...." not "the Sts'Ailes people are a First Nations people" which is bad English as well as redundant and is also uncited as well as unnecessary, as this is a unique name. PRECISION and Conciseness in CRITERIA as well as the UNDAB essay which lays those out in detail, make this undiscussed moves in the thousand done by the same editor acting alone, call for the removal of the artificial disambiguation. Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Question - User:Kwamikagami, it would help everyone seeing the increasing number of RMs if you could please explain your move with reference to WP:AT, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), please. (I see there is no Sts'Ailes language as "the group traditionally speaks Halqemeylem, the Upriver Dialect of Halkomelem", so presumably not governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages)). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • See CambridgeBayWeather's comments on other RMs about the guidelines. There is no reason for this redirect; the inclusion of the "people" was completely unnecessary and not mandated by guidelines i.e. is not compulsory despite those who like to pretend that it is. This one is also re-complicated because the band makes no distinction between their modern, official DBA name and their version of the term "Chehalis" see their site and note the use of it also as a placename and in reference to their government. There are certain others like this, e.g. Xaxli'p or Cacli'p (older and newer St'at'imc spelling systems, both are current in English) which they use synonymously for their band government. This may be able to be handled by categoried redirects. As for the language issue it's actually a dialect of Halqemeylem they use, with a vocabulary that includes sesqac, the indigenous form of Sasquatch, and just as they do not self-identify as Sto:lo (and they do not in fact live on the Fraser River, as that name implies, but on the Harrison River and Harrison Bay, they have retained their own dialect though I don't know where t o find documentation on that; the book People of the Harrison by Daphne Sleigh might have something in it about that. It was because of the sesqac source (might be on the Sasquatch article that I first heard of the separate dialect; their art style is recorded as being distinct from that of their neighbours too (this was a very large carved-house village in its day) but when missionaries persuaded them to take down the artwork it wound up in someone's barn in Rosedale and was burned by a farmhand who was told to clean out the barn one day).

Also, "Sts'Ailes" is I believe of modern coinage and may not be of the same root as where the name of the community article Chehalis, British Columbia, the IRs and the river get their name from. Seabird Island also has its own dialect, as that IR was settled from many different peoples (I think there had been a mission school i.e. residential school there) and it's a mish-mash there, as I was told by a native person from Mt Currie who had cousins there.

I was pondering all this last night while looking at their website and don't have a solution; but given that they use it as a standalone name in all senses, adding "people" is inadequate and would require separate pages Sts'Ailes (band government), Sts'Ailes (community) etc.

If "someone" had read the links in the article before doing hasty pudding on the name change, those conundrums would not be on the table.Skookum1 (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Explain where? There were already a hundred RM's a couple days ago. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

this was not on any of them, I had overlooked it.Skookum1 (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your resistance to discussing each of these separately is tiresome; you moved them one-by-one yourself without discussion of any kind except at your own pet guideline's talkpage (all of four or five people were involved) so why do you object by one-by-one discussions as needed, as in this case some have complications. Somewhere between OWN and OBSTINATE is what you display by your efforts to retain these titles by delaying/shutting down discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

there are several dozen BC town/settlement names that are being RMd to undisambiguated titles, also per guidelines just as this one is (yet you ignore those guidelines persistently); are you going to complain that they are "disruptive" too? There will be thousands of them by the time this project is done...Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral It was impossible to definitively answer the question as to which name is more common given the lack of sources, so I'm neutral. However, if at any point it's desired to move Chehalis First Nation to Sts'Ailes Indian Band than I would oppose as natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthesis disambiguation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the band uses "Sts'Ailes" as its only name form, without Indian Band or First Nation attached (the same is probably true by now on INAC/AADNC, I haven't looked that up, their site was down when I tried), and also use it as a reference to themselves as a people, it may be that in order to satisfy the separate government/people category hierarchy that a redirect to Sts'Ailes be used on one or the other categories; the Indian Reserve is still "Chehalis", and that reserve community and adjoining non-IR lands are the primary use of that name in BC. Sts'Ailes is I think of modern coinage, and not the original Halkomelem word; maybe, but I don't think so. "Chehalis" I thought was something to do with soft sand; that issue is separate here; in any case the band's website never says "Sts'Ailes" people, they talk about the people and the band government as being the same; often the case with "new" names btw.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • which one should be the redirect is the remaining issue, once the unnecessary dab is reverted; I'd say the government would be the redirect, but that's a judgment call; the community is older than the band government. What the ancient name of the village is (as opposed to the people/band government) may have been different.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Is the idea then to merge Chehalis First Nation into an article called Sts'Ailes? If so, I'd change my position to support as it seems like duplication of material would be eliminated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Sts'Ailes was moved to that because of the complications of "Chehalis people" and was to be for ethnographic content as opposed to the band government format for pages, which is about counsellors and business dealings and programs; that is not duplication. Another alternative to a merged article is to retain the convention for separate ethnographic and government articles by making this [[Sts'Ailes (indigenous people)] and Sts'Ailes (band government).Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Parenthesis disambiguation for those two elements would make no sense given the the little amount of content on each and the fact natural disambiguation could be achieved. They should be merged until such point sufficient content can be created for each. Just my two sense.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
            • I would strongly oppose that merge based on IPNA guidelines/regular practices separating ethno and government articles. And also if you have the time, please read [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#re_the_group.2Fpeople_stubs_and_why_it_is_they.27re_not_developed.2C_and_what_can_be_done|this on the WP:NCET][] talkpage concerning such matters.Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment the "mandatory" application of "people" to such names is under dispute, and was never fully agreed upon even by the writers of NCL; in the case of unique names it was never called for per UNDAB; there is not even a dialect article here (yet); I have challenged the addition of "preferred" to the table on WP:NCET and also the claim that "FOO people" is unambiguous; see the talkpage discussion at NCET, though it has not yet been advertised across affected WikiProjects for broader discussion; NCET at least admits to "FOO" and "FOOs" as options; in this case this is a unique name, and used as a standalone. There are no sources to support "Sts'Ailes people".Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 26 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.