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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

– See notes about this group of moves on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. NB some of these may require re-disambiguation, those I am aware of I have added RMs for; some like Arapaho people are already redirects to the standalone title, a demonstration of the unneeded nature of the move to "FOO people". Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note please centralize discussion on this group of articles at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. Other requested moves in the same large group are listed on Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move and Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cayuga people → Cayuga
• Cayuga → Cayuga (disambiguation)
• Nanticoke tribe → Nanticoke
• Nanticoke → Nanticoke (disambiguation)
• Oswegatchie people → Oswegatchie
• Munsee people → Munsee
  • target is redirect to current title, created July 16, 2012 by Bob Burkardt
• Wyandot people → Wyandot
  • target is disambig that was originally a redirect to current title created Feb 27 2011 by Kwami who created a WP:TWODABS dab page on the same date. This was expanded to a full disambiguation page by BKonrad on March 12 2011
• Mohawk people → Mohawk some other solution, maybe Mohawk peoples?
  • target is large disambiguation created on Aug 29 2002 by LovesMacs

* Mohawk → Mohawk (disambiguation)

• Maliseet people → Maliseet
  • target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on June 8 2010, original article created as "Maliseet" by Kainaw on March 30, 2004
• Beothuk people → Beothuk
  • target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on Feb 2 2011, citing the naming convention he'd just authored; original article created as "Beothuks" on June 15 2003 by Adam Bishop
• Passamaquoddy people → Passamaquoddy
  • target is redirect to current title, created by Kwami on June 8, 2010, original article created by DavidWBrooks on December 23 2003
• Penobscot people → Penobscot
  • target is disambig created by BKonrad on May 20, 2004 as "Penobscot (disambiguation)", moved to "Penobscot" by Kwami on June 8 2010
• Penobscot → Penobscot (disambiguation)
  • see above
• Abenaki people → Abenaki
  • target is redirect to current title moved by Kwami on June 8 2010, original article created on June 5, 2002 by 207.22.43.38
• Androscoggin tribe → Androscoggin
  • tribe article created as "Androscoggin (tribe)" on Feb 1 2008 by Origamiemensch. Moved to "Androscoggin tribe" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androscoggin_tribe&diff=366784108&oldid=338262977 by Kwami on June 8 2010, original article at "Androscoggin" created as quasi-disambig one liner re county and river on March 3 2004
• Tenino people → Tenino
  • target is redirect to "Tenino (disambiguation)" by myself on March 12 2012. What is now the dab page was created as a redirect to "Tenino, Washington" on July 10 2006 by Gil Gamesh. Tenino people was moved from Warm Springs tribes by Carrite on Sept 24 2012, saying "Changes modern colloquial name to the name favored by anthropologists" - contrary to COMMONNAME and MOSTCOMMON, original article created by Valfontis on Oct 7 2008 as "Warm Springs tribes" (or "Warm Springs bands", old titles do not display, just going by later move as to what the original title was)

* Oneida people → Oneida

• • target is dab created on July 13 2003 by BRG, Oneida tribe moved to current title by Kwami on Oct 26 2010, original article created as "Oneida tribe" by JimD on April 24 2004
• Onondaga people → Onondaga
  • target was created as two-item geographic dab on Jun 27 2003 by BRD, as "Onondaga (tribe)", moved to current title by Kwami on Oct 26 2010
• Raritan tribe → Raritan
  • target is original title, moved to "Raritan (tribe)" by Gjs238 on Nov 28 2005 and converted into disambig on next edit. Moved from Raritan (Native Americans) to Raritan Lenape by Kwami on Oct 26 2010, on next edit moved by Kwami to current title, original Raritan page was about the tribe, created January 15 2004. This was moved to "Raritan (Native Americans)" by Shoreranger on Nov 20 2007, citing "Not a tribe. The "trie" is the Lenage.[sic] "
• Tuscarora people → Tuscarora
  • current target is dab page, first created as redirect from "Tuscarora" to "Tuscarora (tribe)" by Gjs238 on March 30 2006, original people article created as "Tuscarora" on Oct 4 2001 by 66.136.2.xxx, moved to "(tribe)" by Gjs238 on March 20, 2006], then moved to current title by Kwami on Oct 26 2010

* Oneida → Oneida (disambiguation)

• Esopus tribe → Esopus
  • target was created as redirect to "Esopus, New York on Nov 15 2004 by Danny then converted to dab on same day by Gjs238. Current title was created as redirect to "Lenape" on Bamse on March 6 2009, then converted into basis of current article on September 20 2010 by Swampyank]
• Timpanog tribe → Timpanog
  • redirect is available, name is unique. Current title was created as "Timpanogs (people)" by Johnpacklambert on Aug 24 2008, then moved by Kwami to current title on Aug 2 2010
• Ute people → Ute
  • current title is dab page, originally created about the people on Aug 17 2002 by Karen Johnson (well, er, primarily that but the basis of the dab page re an Australian-lingo usage, too). Current title was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ute_people&oldid=21480490 created as "Ute (tribe)" by Maylet on Aug 21 2005, moved on same day to Ute Tribe, then moved by Omegatron to "Ute tribe" Nov 25 2006. Then moved from "Ute tribe" to "Ute people" by Kwami on Aug 2 2010
• Tuscarora → Tuscarora (disambiguation)
  • see above
• Arapaho people → Arapaho
  • target is redirect to current title, created Feb 27 2011 by Kwami. Arapaho (disambiguation) exists and is in the article's hatnote.
• Ute → Ute (disambiguation)
  • see above
• Hopi people → Hopi
  • target is redirect to current title created by move by Kwami on May 17 2011. Hopi (disambiguation) exists and is mentioned in current title's hatnote
• Hualapai people → Hualapai
  • target is redirect to current title created by move by Kwami on May 17 2011

– See notes about this group of moves on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. NB some of these may require re-disambiguation, those I am aware of I have added RMs for; some like Arapaho people are already redirects to the standalone title, a demonstration of the unneeded nature of the move to "FOO people". Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note please centralize discussion on this group of articles at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move. Other requested moves in the same large group are listed on Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move and Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. These names are generally ambiguous. Should "Wyandot" be the Wyandot people, the Wyandot Nation, or the Wyandot language? We've had this debate before, and decided on being specific. And you really should have the discussion in one place. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • • • Who was it that decided to be specific?? - certainly not me, not in the way you mean. We have indeed had this debate before, but what you're saying about how it came out is not how it was; indeed not, or have you forgotten the five RMs you bitterly (and baitingly) opposed? And lost? it's like that "vs lang per name convention" claim on so many.....you refer to a convention but I don't see it anyway. "We" did have a convention, that ethno articles did not need "people", in many cases because it's redundant to the meaning of the name (and also not how those names are used in English, where they commonly are standalone "especially in more recent sources" but not only). The RM system did not allow for a central discussion site; I assumed it would be at Talk:Chipewyan people...but here you are making the virtually same post as you did there on a second page. Another part of the "old convention" which was reached by a fairly large group of editors in times gone by, not by one editor acting alone and changing hundreds of articles without discussion, or even letting anyone know... part of that "old convention" was to, where possible/plausible, use native endonyms as a standard for ethno article names; in cases where a "tribe" is a government page and not a people page then "tribe" remains. And in the same convention, "FOO First Nation" (or if still used "FOO Indian Band") was a title for a government page, not a people page. "Your" consensus ignores the "FOO people" problem. And re using native names, that's where Palus and Spokan come from, now with needless disambiguation, and with respect to the geographic complications of the "English" versions of those names. "Our" conventions make a lot more sense than "yours" does, the FOO people problem was serious enough that "someone" felt compelled to pirate-change a category name to make it FOO when that is in direct conflict with FOO's primarytopic. That particular category was changed speedily to match a change to the main article (to the FOO people format, because FOO has many other meanings); this was the whole point of using the native endonyms and that was summarized in the reversions from your changes to those articles. Convention? How about precedent? Consistency? Currently there are scads of FOO ethno articles with no "people" or "tribe" attached to them. And part of the whole point of the old consensus' recommendation that ethno articles (and categories) be in the native form was because of consistency; and fairness, even though some names are more obscure and/or of recent invention. You wantonly, also, changed other articles, now at RM also, to "[archaic form] people" from "modern usage" claiming COMMONNAME but the stats on those just weren't right (Dakelh, Wuikinuxv) as has come out in the closure of the former RM, and during the discussion on the latter. So don't talk to me about "conventions" and "being specific". Stop making things up; you were a rogue in making all these changes; of course you'd oppose them. And don't call this a personal attack, I'm calling a spade a spade and telling the facts; and represent a convention agreed upon by multiple editors early on, which was to address the whole set of articles; which you went after solo, one-by-one, referring to a convention taht does not exist, and also ignoring the "FOO people" convention which in the rest of the wiki-universe is used for "people who are FOO". I'm wasting my breath I know, you have never been open to reason; your claim that these names are ambiguous is nonsense; they are very specific - which is why many of them are already redirects to the changed-name, e.g. Abenaki; then there's Androscoggin and Timpanog. Ambiguous in respect to what??Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Some of these requests are likely acceptable but others are certainly not. Let's take the example of the request to move Nanticoke tribe to Nanticoke and Nanticoke to Nanticoke (disambiguation). There is no demonstration that Nanticoke is most commonly associated with the tribe. It's a name associated with an extinct language and a number of scattered geographical locations. For instance, there are almost 1.5 times the page views for each of Nanticoke Generating Station and Nanticoke, Pennsylvania than Nanticoke tribe (see: [1][2][3]. Nanticoke tribe has essentially the same number of his as Nanticoke, Ontario (see:[4][5] and only slightly more than Nanticoke River[6]. The same is almost certainly the case for Cayuga, Mohawk and potentially Oneida. In the very least this RM should be split and each attended to separately. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm all for organizing a split if it means that the unique and definitely primarytopic ones are more likely to pass this. Nanticoke I can see that the generating station is probably (easily) the most primary usage, "Mohawk" not so much because the standalone form (to me) is recognizably about the people; other uses were named for them and I can't see a chain of gas stations or a military vessel being the most common use of the term. Oneida silverware comes to mind for that term (the current Mohawk people title I helped create btw, because Mohawk nation has various complicated connotations and like "tribe", "nation" has legal meanings). I already avoided Seneca, where the primarytopic is clearly the Roman senator whose bio that link goes to. That aside, what parameters do you propose for such a split? Re Entiat and Klickitat yes there are city and county names to contend with; in most cases there are not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Procedural oppose any swapping of a page with a disambiguation page should be requested separately, for every swap instance, a separate discussion should occur. Any displacement of a disambiguation page and replacement of its location for some other use should also occur separately for each instance. These are all different primary topic discussions. Several of the targets are disambiguation pages, so overwriting a disambiguation page is a primary topic dispute, and should each be discussed separately. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • creation of many, perhaps most, of those dab pages, was contrary to dab page guidelines and PRIMARYTOPIC consideration and was done without any procedure or consultation at all. Freelance/rogue application of non-existing conventions in contravention of clear guidelines is how they came about; using them as examples is a non sequitur.Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Most of the proposed titles are needlessly ambiguous, and breaks with established practice across all ethnic related articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is a misleading claim but not surprising given your track record opposing me and your PAs towards me; that "established practice" is NOT across ALL IPNA articles and "FOO people" has that other complication which is also an established practice across "individuals who are FOO". And the "established practice" in these cases is 90 percent the work of one editor acting alone, "establishing a practice" on his own say-so, claiming guidelines that do not exist or were dealt with in isolation from other guidelines or even the full texts of those self-same guidelines. AND 90% of these at least are NOT ambiguous, and were in fact at "FOO" prior to being changed; so evident is this that the wording of the ledes, which were not changed, indicates that the common usage in English in these cases is not "FOO people" but simply "FOO", as in "the FOO are a Native American/First Nations/indigenous people in", and on most of them there is a hatnote "for other uses see FOO (disambiguation) (not to "FOO" as you'd think would have been the case if said reckless editor had done more than just change titles and move on; some articles have the FOO people wording in the lede but other editors tidied that up, where it does occur; but it's rare. Established practice was JUST "FOO" until the reckless change of the bulk (95%? more??) change to them in 2011, as was the convention established early on that - while y'all keep on talking about conventions, none of your ilk will even acknowledge as extant for a very long time; even though there remain many "FOO" articles in all province and state indigenous categories. Exaggeration and misrepresentation and outright fabrication is nothing new to me around here, but man is it easy to shoot holes full of too.Skookum1 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Since this proposal has to bearings on the general approach to nomenclature of ethnic groups I have notified WP:Ethnic Groups of this discussion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good idea. Where's the relevant WikiProject re the "FOO people" = "individuals who are FOO" issue, which is also an "established practice, so vital to someone that she applied it wantonly to create one category with a highly ambiguous name without caring about the consequences....(very funny to hear you talk about these names being ambiguous LOL). I'm all for broader input here but the point here was indigenous peoples of North America only, where various cultural and geographic issues apply, not ethnic groups worldwide...the "FOO people" "disambiguation" clearly is highly ambiguous and something other than "people" must be found to replace it due to the usual meaning of "individuals who are FOO", which is used for both main article titles and overwhelmingly for categories (99+%). And so, the easiest way to deal with the problem of the unnecessary disambiguation that was applied to them, particuarly totally unique ones, is to revert them to "FOO" which is where the bulk of them were to start with. cf. what WP:UCN has to say about "conciseness". i.e. brevity as well as clarity. Androscoggin and Timpanog and Ojibwe do not need any extra words in their titles, especially ones that confuse the article's type of content with "individuals who are FOO".Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.