Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:00, 27 March 2014

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

BHG talkback

Category:Provincial parks in Canada by province or territory - ??

Just noticed this....how can a territory have a provincial park, since it's not a province? I'm not sure there even are "territorial parks" btw.Skookum1 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting dilemma Skookum1, there are territorial parks such as Chan Lake Territorial Park, I am unsure how to proceed. I would say rather than renaming the category for a few places just to include them in as they are already included in the List of Canadian provincial parks page. Thoughts??01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Skookum1!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Skookum1: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 08:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles A. Woodward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Oliver and Gore District

Charles N. "Chunky" Woodward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Woodward

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Closure of Canadian science libraries

By posting about this topic at four talk pages (Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Environment and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Libraries and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Science), I did hope to interest other editors in requesting digitization of whatever materials remain. As for mentioning the closure in the content of "Environmental policy of the Harper government", whose talk page you designated for centralized discussion, I am leaving that to other editors.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of where else such content should be put, that's all. Definitely one of his/their policies.Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vancouver City (provincial electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandon, British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kootenay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coast Salish peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Fraser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Glad you have a sense of humor. I hope that you caught the none-too-clever Simpsons reference and realize that I don't think you are worse than Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Whistler

I don't have the patience to deal with it either. So I used a sledgehammer. The whole thing was unencyclopedic and some just incorrect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AN

I don't know the ideal place for your recent post, but WT:AN is almost certainly the wrong one. The admin noticeboards use the WP: namespace, not the talk pages. You might want to move it to WP:ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

Hi Skookum - I find it hard to follow your logic when you post walls of text, interspersed with disparaging comments about other editors. I think your case would be better served by outlining in clear, simple, bullet-pointed logic why you think these categories need to be deleted, and then let others weigh in. We will always have the namespace collision issue we spoke about earlier, but consistency is also another desirable quality of categories. I'm sure a good solution can be found but you should also AGF. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

your actions in re-populating the incorrectly created category fly in the face of the CfD result, which isn't even a year old yet. It mandated the use of Category:Squamish people as the main ethno category title and though I obviously don't like it, I've respected the process and not barged on and created Category:Skwxwu7mesh on my own as now it seems I should have, since Uysvidi has - by your complicity in her creating of a category name that was negated as workable by consensus, and also complicity in her hijacking of the CfD ethno-category title for use as the "people who are Skwxu7mesh" category. You are entrenching and supporting misconduct by your actions in this regard. And, like her, you are blissfully unaware of the important geographic context as to why Category:Squamish had to be changed once it was speedied there because of teh outcome of RM2 at Squamish people. So what's next? I go launch RM3 there at Squamish people, pick apart RM2 for its various bigotries and gaffes, invoke MOS' new mandate to respect the original author's intent (here meaning OldManRivers and not Uysvidi), hope for a sane outcome (unlikely given experience) and then a speedy? or just say "FUCK IT" and create Category:Skwxu7mesh - actually hijack it because she created a redirect category instead of listening to my suggestion that she speedy her WRONG choice of "Squamish" as if it were in harmony with the other contents of Category:First Nations in British Columbia. She's not "up on it" enough to know that the equivalent to "Squamish" re the Skwxwu7mesh, would be "Lillooet" for the St'at'imc, "Thompson" for the Nlaka'pamux, "Burrard" for the Tsleil-waututh, "Shuswap" for the Secwepemc etc etc

I repeat, the simple solution here is to either overturn the speedy of the category name from Category:Skwxwu7mesh to Category:Squamish people, irrespective of the usual "category title must match main article" mantra (which is not an ironclad rule, only a guideline that has lots of exceptions that can be pointed to), or to revisit the decision made on the main ethno article's RM2 and realize it was a faulty decision. I approached fayenatic london immediately after his decision on the CfD and pointed out why "Squamish people" was not workable anymore than "Squamish" was and he conceded that there were grounds to have decided on "Skwxwu7mesh" but wanted more google cites or whatever....and if people keep on repeating the same non sequiturs, ignoring what I say the first time, or saying "I have a different opinion" (=lack of knowledge of the subject matter), and then I get criticized for criticizing their errors/attitudes...that's not proper grounds to decide anything like a CfD, RM or AfD or TfD on, as it amounts to a personal attack, making an editor's personality and volubility an issue when the guidelines say no such thing. Speaking of TfDs, the RM at Squamish people also precipitated {{Squamish}} as a speedy, and which similarly completely doesn't get that the PRIMARY TOPIC of "Squamish" is Squamish, British Columbia. So one faulty decision, based in bigoted and ill-informed RM participants, decided by someone who doesn't know the area or the people in question, precipitated changes to categories and templates and also the language and titles used in many sub articles and categories..... the clear solution, to recognize that the use of authentic endonyms (de-diacriticalized) in Canadian FN ethno category titles exists as an unspoken convention (one that was come up with at exactly the time OMR created the original Skwxwu7mesh article/category/template structure) DOES exist and should be used here, not an anglicism that has a geographic ambiguity to it that is of the same kind as to why those other endonym-categories were not given in their "anglicized" forms i.e. Category:Lillooet, Category:Shuswap, Category:Kootenay/Category:Kutenai, Category:Chilcotin have very large geographical-name ambiguities and all this was reckoned into why we should use the native-authentic forms (cf. already about Category:Okanagan in the same light).

But you have chosen to support someone's violation of the CfD decision and have chimed in on faulty suggestions for make-do renamings that were dispensed with in the course of the CfD long ago, and also in old discussions on the endonym you'll find on older areas of Talk:Squamish people and other articles. Do you not get it that it was Usyvidi who "depopulated" a category in order to change its intent? Rather than engage a discussion to change the main ethno category title, she just went ahead and created one that had already been taken down as inviable....how many times do I have to point this out? Procedure on this would have been to do a CfD properly on Category:Squamish people rather than wade into BC's geopolitical landscape on her own.....and the AGF thing I find hard to take, considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards...something perhaps I should revisit, at expense of an edit war...I'd mentioned the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh problem in a current IPNA thread, to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do....AGF? Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process. The proper process here would have been to put a CfD on Category:Squamish people instead of to go off half-cocked, creating a new category using a deleted-for-good-reason's category name and behaving as though it were all peachy keen and allegedly in line with other conventions in the same category tree; it's not, it's an anomaly and has huge geographic context/complications that other in the previous CfD were well aware of, as CambridgeBayWeather also is, but doesn't seem to register on the rest of you in the current CfD as meaningful or relevant, when in fact it's why Category:Squamish was previously deleted by CfD. That can be a disambig category, yes, though I don't see why anyone would put it on any page if Category:Skwxwu7mesh and its attendant subcategories were in place - including Category:Skwxwu7mesh people as opposed to Category:Squamish people which has the same geographic problem as it parent. And re Category:Squamish culture, if you knew anything about Squamish BC you'd only smirk at how silly that sounds. The reason my replies are rambling is because simplistic non-solutions cause so many complicated problems that need explaining - as to why simplistic solutions are non-starters. Wel, other than the simplest solution of all; respect the authentic ethnonym Skwxwu7mesh for what it is, and stop defending the use of a confusing and geographically-ambiguous anglicism, and to remember that part of the point of respecting native choices for their autonyms is to prevent others from deciding what they should be called. That last part resonates strongly across IPNA, yet from so many other areas of Misplaced Pages there's this parochial attitude that between google "reliable sources{ and old textbooks, a "common name" doesn't have to hinge on what the people themselves have coined for use to replace "white man's terms" and can whatever a group of people only half-aware of the subject matter at hand decide is best for them. The cultural condescension implied is rank and it's why the RM2 should be overturned, for that reason alone (review it please) and why all current proposals are wandering around in the fog of colonialist error. I'd asked Fayenatic London to overturn his CfD decision, and provided him the reasons he asked for; he still didn't do it. So why didn't I do then the equivalent of what Usyvidi has done? Ignore him, and just move everything to Category:Skwxwu7mesh and be done with it; but then "Skookum1 violated process, censure him" will be the refrain...... again, making me the issue, rather than addressing practical and obvious solutions available; dismissing them because I'm the one making them amounts to "making an editor the issue, not the subject matter". the difference between making me an issue and me makign Uysvidis' conduct/action an issue is that I'm criticizing her actions, the sentiment against me is against my personality. Which is someone who knows his shit, and doesn't mince words when explaining the ramifications of any issue. I'm tall; asking me to write in point form is like asking me to be short; fitting into someone else's shoebox, the proverbial procrustean bed. Making me an issue is too often a refrain in faulty RMs/AfDs/CfDs et al...... and too often, also, people making a point of ignoring facts presented that pop the balloon on the logics/facts that they are advancing.... pointing at me is just an excuse IMO..... shoot the messenger.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• reply Skookum, I respect your passion, but I don't respect at all the way you're behaving right now. This is really important to you, but you need to accept the points of view of others, even if you think they are wrong. There are two matters: 1) whether the Squamish should have a cat for their culture, and another cat just for people and 2) what those cats should be called, by separating the cultural articles, Usv has done a Good service because this is in line with other such categories - we almost always have people separate. So please UNDO your reversions and repopulate the Squamish category, you are going against the practice in CFD and it makes it very hard to understand the target cat structure when you keep depopulating it. I don't want to but I will ask for admin intervention if you persist. Secondly, and totally orthogonal, is the question of what these cats should be named. But that is the point of this CFD - you're proposing a rename, or a reshuffling. That is fine, but if you wanted to rename to sx7 why not just propose that from the get go? By suggesting that you turn down the rant it is not shooting the messenger, it is a friendly suggestion that if you want to get the result you seem how you deliver the message matters. As it is now the CFD has turned into a mess and it wouldn't surprise me if people stopped voting and it was closed as no-consensus. People create cats all the time, and in doing so diffuse contents of other cats - but our practice is, if we want to delete that new cat, to keep it populated so we can see what the intent was. No-one is harmed if articles are at a slightly ambiguous name for a week or so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

People don't create categories in violation of CfD decisions they know about and discount - and clearly don't understand the gist of the why and wherefore never mind the subject matter. Yes, it's obvious that the people should have their own article, and a category from people who are of their people. Yeah DUH. And rather than have people who really don't know much about them, or about where they're from, deciding what they should be called, others are doing it for them, pointedly ignoring the commentary on the previous CfD and the history of the RMs and more, and ignoring the consequences to templating and also, once people start bypassing redirects, articles where the two meanings of "Squamish" are side by side..... "keep it populated to see what the intent was" ...... the intent was to ignore the geographic confusion and the primary topic problem that was the rationale of the 2013 CfD outcome, and also lay behind the original choice of Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish. Do you not get it that hijacking the "Squamish people" category for what it had been expressly not created for is a violation of process. I'm not the one who made the mess. As for "harming the article" I have yet to see any sign of work from any of you on the article itself, or any sign of acknowledge of the Squamish-the-town problem; just more "give this a chance to see if it's useful when it was already rigorously decided that it was not. Do I have to go pull individual comments from the 2013 CfD about these problems, from other Canadian and BC editors and those aware of the problem. As for being accused of harming the article have a look article histories re category fixes in Category:American Indian Reservations in Nevada and Category:Federally-recognized tribes in Nevada. For trying to make categories contain titles that suit what they[re about by the use of redirects, I was edit warred and called a few names and the disorder still there now prevails; and now she comes to BC to spread disorder. Because that's what this is doing; fielding a category name she knew had been rejected, hijacking a title she knows had been created by a CfD, which somehow she feels she has a right to ignore without even informing herself on the subjects on the Squamish dab page, or the history of the main article and its title; she just wades in, ignores what others have decided, sets up shop with a poison apple thrown in a complicated problem, and sits there making up excuses and gets everyone dumping on me for "how you're behaving". It's not MY behaviour that's the problem here. If Category:Squamish continues to exist as a title, its only workable function is as a disambiguation category, not as the ethnic group category. Even by doing so it upsets the reality that Squamish BC is the primary topic, which is affecting the real world, not acknowledging it; it's also embracing a term for the people that many of them feel is unsuitable and tainted by colonialization and which is any case a mispronunciation....including the article and category's principle author and creator. "Squamish" has also been used to refer to the Skokomish and the Suguamish. We had a good solution, which despite its diacriticals was at least clearly not confusable with the usual and very common meaning of Squamish (the place, the town). And yes, my noise is out of joint at how the 2013 CfD went down (making me the issue instead of the facts) and that even Fayenatic confessed to me that a bit more evidence and less invective and he'd have done the easy path and accepted Skwxu7mesh....which I did not go on to create unilaterally....but then this person who's crossed swords with me - on categories no less - comes along and creates unilaterally another incarnation of a problematic category with no knowledge of the material...not, apparently, any concern for it, being interested more in her "opinion" even though she refuses to understand the facts nor even look at the history of the title. And I'm the bad guy for pointing this out? Come again? This is making me consider doing an

ANI on myself, about how facts presented must prevail over any resentment of the person providing them, and that if something is logical, it's logical, not subject to personal biases against its bearer. I've restored teh contents of Category:Squamish people to what the CfD said it should be; changing that should have taken a CfD, not a CfD caused by someone who doesn't get the nomenclature problem in, wading in with a chainsaw, and setting up shop her own way. I'll ask you again; what would the reception have been to me ignoring the CfD, and unilaterally creating filling Category:Skxwu7mesh and its attendant subcategories...and depopulating in the process Category:Squamish people in the very same way, but to a different category, as Usvidi has done, without mandate, and which you want restored, even though it's in violation of the May 2013 CfD mandate and all the same issues that led to its abandonment and deletion are still present. Do you not understand how important this is? Do you not have a mirror to understand that it is you who in fault here, by supporting a rash, uninformed action by asking her violation of protocol be given a chance? Why ever should that be? Setting a ship afloat to see if it will sink? Because sure as hell it can't survive (as anything but a disambiguated category)...It's like saying Category:Ottawa is the main ethno category for the Odawa people. "Categories get created all the time" is not a reason to allow the survival of one that should not have been re-created by someone unconcerned about the consequences or the background or even the subject matter.....and whether or not innocuous in motive as you would try to have me believe, ultimately destructive and time-wasting, and stubborn about even acknowledging the geographic name problem or the context of ethnonyms of this kind in BC...... maybe I should go crew around in Nevada categories again and set them to rights by moving them onto pages where they belong and off of pages where they don't..........And then wait for the ANI about my misconduct. Idle title-moving based on guidelines without any knowledge of the subjects affected should be interdicted by wiki policy; for certain areas, unless you know something about the subject/context you should not be doing unilateral changes to established situations without discussion.....or defending your ignorance as "opinion" and insist that it should be heard, while insisting that the person who is telling you the facts of you error should not be listened to .....even though he's the one who knows the material; I have Skwxwu7mesh friends and acquaintances, and friends who live in Squamish who aren't Skwxwu7mesh, I've driven or ridden through Squamish hundreds of times....but I should be ignored because I have to repeat myself when people reiterate the same WRONG ideas and continue to ignore the reasons why their ideas - and their actions - are not viable....not acceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Making a person's alleged "behaviour" a reason to decide a CfD et al. against his valid informations/ideas is NOT in Misplaced Pages guidelines. The merits of the facts, the logics presented and their validity or not is what procedure should be decided by; not emotions brought on by personal insecurity about someone more voluble, or who is bearing truths and points that make your own ideas look bad? Making me an issue in cases like this is contrary to wikipedia guidelines.....my "behaviour" gets criticized, while someone can display flagrant and aggressive overturning of a CfD so blithely and get mollycoddled and defended........ can the uninformed be so easily trumped over those who know the material?? Because someone's style is seen to be a factor? How encyclopedia is that?? Not very at all huh??Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi is trying to help you, Skookum1 and I wish you wouldn't turn his giving you advice into license to write another "wall of text". Perhaps style shouldn't matter but it does...people's time editing Misplaced Pages is limited and it is unlikely that many editors will read your entire rant to see the valid points you might have. To put it bluntly, most editors do not care as much as you do about this difference of opinion so you'd be more effective at winning support if you were brief...you don't have to use bullet points but break up your paragraphs so that each focus on a point of your argument. For better or worse, the burden is on you to make your position understandable and when most people encounter text like that (above), they simply won't take the time to read it. I can see you're irritated that this matter is up for debate but it is so the best strategy is not to complain but think of how you can present your argument to persuade other editors that your position is justified. Obi-Wan Kenobi is just taking the time to give you advice on how you might succeed. Liz 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Obiwan is done giving advice, and is unwatching this page. I officially no longer care. Sorry and good luck.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever; making me the issue in problems created by people ignoring procedure and also facts and getting on my case for not being short-phrased enough, while making excuses for people who have violated protocol by their actions and embracing their positions despite the obvious faults and lapses of logic and fact in them.....unwatch me all you want, you clearly weren't really paying attention in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Drama

Hey Skookum1, you know that I have often supported your ideas about article naming and such, but on this one, you need to ratchet down the drama a bit; I know you and Uyvsdi are spatting about category naming and some other issues, and I happen to consider BOTH of you to be valuable editors and hate to see you getting into the realm of making personal attacks on another user, which you know can't end well. The bottom line is that we all want to show respect to people by calling them what they prefer to be called, but when there is also a significant usage of an English-styled name, we can't just pretend it isn't there and erase it, we have to figure out a way to work it all in. (In my neck of the woods, Sioux and ] are good examples of this.) Categories help people find articles, so our naming conventions there, by necessity, may not be quite the same as in articles themselves. I'm a great fan of redirects and such. I hope you can stick just to the issues and try to back off on personalizing matters with you and Uyvsdi. Montanabw 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The most significant use of that "English-styled name" is of a very notable town, and it is by far and away the most notable topic on that name, using it undisambiguated in that form is a violation of PRIMARYTOPIC; the reason Squamish, British Columbia is disambiguated as such (unique Canadian placenames like Kamloops and Nanaimo carry no disambiguation) is because of the many uses of the name, and because of the conflict with the source aboriginal name; Squamish is a disambiguation page for the same reason that Lillooet and Chilcotin are. Drama? Drama lies in having to tell people over and over and over again, who keep on pretending it doesn't matter, the simple fact that "Squamish" by itself is confusing and most people are going to think of the town, not of the aboriginal people. Naming the category that is only going to cause confusion, including of the kind I pointed out re pages in Vancouver having a "Squamish" category on them. And as it happens now, given my recent google, "Skwxwu7mesh" gets more hits than "Squamish people", and guaranteed that the more recent the publication the more likely the native ethnonym is going to be used, especially when distinguishing between the people as a whole, their band government and/or the town. The other Canadian participants agree with this and understand it implicity as I do - that "Squamish" was never a viable category name and should never have been brought back from the dead, particularly by someone who has no idea of the town or the significance of its name as the by-far-and-away MOSTCOMMON use of the term. That this keeps on being shrugged off, and so many iffy quibbles posed, is a sign to me that the consensus process has no place in decisions required informed action; if this goes to "no consensus" and this category stays as is I'll have to seek ARBCOM or some other higher power; or just say fuck it, do what Uysvidi did and start my own fucking category with a name that's useful and clear. And then watch the chauvinists come out and say that it's not acceptable in global English, to hell with Canadian norms, unpronounceable non-English names aren't allowed in Misplaced Pages, and procedure has to be respected. Yeah uh-huh OK....go have a readc through the RM at Talk:Squamish people and check out some of the bias and narrow-mindedness, even the guy pontificating about the Suguamish without even knowing that the Skwxwu7mesh were in Canada, not Washington, or that the town of Squamish even existed or has any importance (15,000 may be small by US standards, it's quite large in Canada). such a person "voted" on that RM.... as did the person who damned Skxwu7mesh as a "meaningless string" or whatever...... that RM was closed in 7 days, with no effort to seek expert input, and was followed by a speedy CfD......thank god this didn't happen across the board in BC categories, or there'd be 10 or more parallel CfDs to this one, and no end of confusion with similar undisambiguated category names like Category:Lillooet, Category:Chilcotin and more....Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the issue is being handled well enough elsewhere. If the community has come around to Skxwu7mesh, that's going to help other names that use unusual diacritical markings. But I also know that there is a need to use dabs and redirects where needed to direct people to the articles they seek; otherwise, we wind up with "new" articles being recreated under the old names and then another round of drama. I would urge caution, though, with your work on USA tribal groups outside the Pacific Northwest; different legalities and such; many reservations and missions separate from tribes due to US Gov't policies and such. Montanabw 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Other than that '7' glottal stop, it's the non-diacritical form of Skwxwu7mesh I'm advocating; OldManRivers would of course prefer it in full Skwxwu7mesh orthography; but as with St'at'imc and Sto:lo when these terms do get used in English publications, it's without all the bells and whistles (those in St'at'imc are a single special character in the original for example). As with St'at'imc and Sto:lo I want something that can be typed instead of copy-pasted. And re work on tribal groups outside the PacNW, and speaking of redirects, all I'm doing is making category contents match what the content is for; see Category:American Indian reservations in California and follow the italicked entries; the same in reverse should be done from the tribe categories, and in fact starting there yesterday I found a few things that weren't in the reservation category; this is making sense of the category tree how it's supposed to work....the Washington categories used to be jumbled like this, with tribe-names showing up in language categories, reservations showing up in tribe categories etc; the notion that people=goverment=land may mean that there should be only one article but there's no reason to abuse categories by having titles in them that don't make sense for what the category is....ease of navigation.....I don't wade into the nitty gritty of the actual content of most US articles because I don't know the legalities (very different from Canada; where traditional territories, far beyond IRs, are still considered unsurrendered and sovereign; vs the US where the reservations are considered sovereign and larger-territory rights have been abdicated). All this began from me trying to make sense of a very jumbled set of category trees.Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"looks like the issue is being handled well enough elsewhere"....there's another discussion somewhere I'm not invited to? and re my discovery of Category:Chumash people, which is the ethno category not the "people who are Chumash" category, I found this very ironic.Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything else other than the CfD, which is what I meant by "elsewhere." That's more than plenty for me. I've got other fish to fry... literally!. Montanabw 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the Chumash problem; I've said everything I can on the CfD, and have wound up looking around and finding other things that need fixing..that don't need consensus, though there's currently an RM at Talk:Carrier people and a CfDS, which might be passed by this morning, at Category:Dunneza. Naming standards for indigenous peoples' categories need to be codified though, and certain categories and articles "locked"......there will always be dabblers come along who start re-arranging things without realizing the implications or knowing the subject matter....Category:Mohawk tribe and Category:Blackfoot tribe need resolution though; both of those are in "American language" and the FOO tribe thing implies a government; and in both cases the majority of those populations is on the Canadian side of the border.....given the old discussions on Talk:Mohawk people about the complications of "tribe" and "nation" that's a thorny one.....and the Mohawk political map and cluster of articles is just about teh most complicated of all indigenous categories there is....Skookum1 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Old Massett may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• , First Peoples' Language Map of British Columbia]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Kung 11

Huh? Yes, just removed (non-redirect) categories from redirects. But since redirects are only encountered by people who type in the term somewhere, they can't really be duplicates. Either that person gets taken to what they're looking for, or told it doesn't exist. WilyD 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The "FOO " format for Canadian Indian reserves is a pain in the ass; originally only a form/shorthand in French, it got applied into English Canadian usages by some federal bureaucratic decision, and is used too readily by Wikipedians with no experience of what an Indian reserve is, or how they're commonly referred to. Not your problem of course, but quite oftne there's parallel "FOO " items as well as "FOO Indian Reserve No. " for the same item.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mi'kmaw

'Mi'kmaw' is actually a different word or part of speech from Mi'kmaq, in Mi'kmewey but is also used and it may just be that the pronunciation Migmaw is gaining in popularity in English over Migmaq recently. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Recently" would be the last 15-20 years of Canadian media usage and would be the new standard form in English; that the now-offensive and very archaic form English: /ˈmɪkˌmæk/ is given pride of place here speaks to the inefficacy of using out of date citations from academic/obsolete texts and not actually having a listen. see User_talk:Maunus#.22MIGmaw.22 and note that I'm consulting actual Mi'kmaq people of my acquaintance, and will look up the CBC and government style guides. The notion that "mikmaw" is only an adjectival form in Mi'kmaq may be technically true, but that's not the case in modern Canadian/Nova Scotian English where it is the ONLY form.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You trumpet "overcoming systemic bias" on your userpage, but here you are, retrenching a colonialist pronunciation on the one hand with a colonialist logic to back it up, and are including in systemic bias towards Canadian English usages and its adaptation of native endonyms, which is now the norm; and don't forget that Canadian English speakers include the Mi'kmaq people of today, and it is they who use "MIGmaw", as I hear it and have learned it, and who do not make a distinction in English between the adjectival and noun forms. Perhaps the systemic bias you should work on countering is your own....Skookum1 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As a helpful hint, I suggest you tune into APTN or find some aboriginal news on CBC or any of the Nova Scotian TV channels and have a listen....Skookum1 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with systemnatic bias. As one familiar with Mi'kmewey language, I'm telling you they are two different words in that language. (noun v.adjective) If anyone wants to find the People's language "offensive" for whatever reason that is their problem but hopefully you can cite that someone is offended by it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh so the line in the article saying that some Mi'kmaq find it (the Micmac spelling/pronunciation) "colonially tainted" doesn't register on you? Have you considered what they mean by that? that they find it parochial and disrespectful is what that means..... And this isn't about what the usage in their language is, it's about how the name is pronounced in Canadian English where it is in widespread and current use, irrespective of what references linguists and wikipedians want to point to about how it is in the native language. You can be familiar with the language in an academic sense, but have you lived in a Mi'kmaq community? Have you been in Canadian English media environments or Canadian social milieu where you might speak with (a) a Canadian or (b) a Mi'kmaq Canadian using the term in English? I have. Maunus calls that "original research", I call it "direct experience" = and am consulting my Mi'kmaq and other Scotian/Newfoundlander acquaintances for their input/citations. If you can't see your systemic bias against Canadian English, I suggest you adjust the dimensions of the shoebox you've chosen to put your brain into, and rather than tell this Canadian you know best, go look up parochialism. Systemic bias is all about misconceptions and misperceptions and a lack of perpective; and you should step back from your supposed "familiarity" with the Mi'kmaq language and consider that this is an English language article addressing a term used in English and t hat someone familiar with modern English usage in the country in question be given fair credit for their reporting that the current lede's pronunciatiosn are way out of whack with "how it is".Skookum1 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have lived in a Mi'kmaq community in Canada, yes, yes, yes. And you are talking about the older English term "Micmac" whereas I was not referring to that but to the form Mi'kmaq (/meeg-makh/) which is perfectly correct alongside Mi'kmaw. I wouldn't be surprised if "Mi'kmaw" is more favored than "Mi'kmaq" in Canadian English for the past 20 years though, I haven't been there lately. As for the obsolete "Micmac", it has some unsavoury meaning in French, according to some French dictionaries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

English: /ˈmɪkˌmæk/ is what I'm talking about; the current English usage is "MIGmaw" not an unaspirated 'k' but distinctly a 'g' and there's sometimes a bit of shcwa between the G and the m but that's kind of the same thing is "nu-cue-lar" for nuclear.... and the vowel is not "ee" but "ih". In English that is; tune into the youtube recast of the Atlantic Television News or CBC Atlantic's news.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I heard that kind of pronunciation (Migamaw) from Crees and Ojibwes 25 years ago whereas Mi'kmaq would say Meeg-makh; it sounds like Canadian English has picked up the "Migamaw" form from that western influence since then, from what you are telling me!Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is in fact a talking dictionary of Mígmaq online. That would be the best reference for pronunciation. But we are not talking about a difference in pronunciation, but about two different words as we have been pointing out, and which all sources confirm. And several of those sources are written by linguists who are native speakers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

the issue here is how the name Mi'kmaq is pronounced in contemporary English, what a linguistics book says about how it is pronounced in Mi'kmaq is NOT what I am talking about; I am talking about ONE word, not two, i.e. the same word/pronunciation that is the same whether noun or adjective (well, in English "the Mi'kmaq" implies the Mi'kmaq person/man/woman, so...and I can't think of a noun usage of the term in English come to think of it, given that would always be implied...adjectival it is; but it's with a 'g' not a 'k', very definitely so. I know from experience the tortured RMs of last year, from asking about it, that the CBC style guide is no longer a separate publication but is a database tied into the Holy Mother Corp's computer system and can't be shared. What other print sources there might be for the current English usage remains to be seen, I'm looking....the impression currently given in the lede that the "Micmac" pronunciation is still in use, when it is long obsolete, needs to be corrected. Unless you have a linguistics book on Canadian English including adaptations of native loan words/endonyms, we'll have to find another kind of publication. I will, anyway. What I do know from experience, also, is that how people say a word in English vs the same word when used in their language is not always the same; this is definitely the case with Sto:lo, though you hear both pronunciations (ow and oh for the ). So even a native speaker of Mi'kmaq, when using the name of his people in English, is likely not going to pronounce it the same was as if speaking his/native tongue; I know my Conne River friend refers to himself, anyway, as being L'nu. Until I hear from him, I'll be sourcing video/broadcast examples and any written style guides or other material I can find. For the English usage, not what linguists say about the language itself. The lede as it stands right now encourages people to use the archaic pronunciation......and given that that pronunciation is not in current Canadian English, and articles about people or places are to be written in Canadian English and from a Canadian context.....it's the current Canadian English, not "linguists' English" that's the issue....Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K'omoks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hat notes

I added a "redirects here" hate note on Chemainus, British Columbia here, you may wish to check my wording. I am not 100% on the nomenclature for referring to First Nations.--kelapstick 13:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

because "First Nations" has so many variable meanings "indigenous" or "aboriginal" would be better, especially if the link was to a people article (which doesn't exist yet); singular "First Nation" is a wiki convention for a band government. One thing emerging in the real world, not recognized by/applied in Misplaced Pages yet, is when "First Nations" is used as an adjective, it's lower-cased e.g. "first nations person".Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wahnapitae First Nation vs. Nickel Centre

Did you miss the part in Wahnapitae First Nation where it explicitly clarifies that the community of Wahnapitae in Nickel Centre is not the same thing? If you need extra clarification, here's a Google Map — the "162 Trans-Canada Highway" dot is the community, while the separate "West Bay Road" dot, over 50 km away by road, is the reserve. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry no didn't see that part.....so the Wanapitae redirect should maybe go to a dab page instead; noting the reserve names are spelled differently from that of the FN. Shoulda read closer, was in the middle of a blitz of adding Category:Ojibwe reserves and reservations (cross-border category NB, hence that title), in said process creating redirects from IR names to the bands associated with them, unless the redirect would better go to a place.....where that one redirect went confused me.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Krishnan Suthanthiran

I've started this article. Improvements welcome. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

IPA edit

What's a common word with this vowel? — Lfdder (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to think of one....Shut maybe, or huh. Shuh-MAY-nus To me definitely more like a schwa than an "eh" like in debt - perhaps it's both depending on who you are; like how some people might say Nah-NAI-mo and some might say NE-NAI-mo (where E-schwa); I was going to use Mount Cheam as an example (of the latter sound but someone has made that /ˈʃiːæm/ and I really don't know who came up with that, it's wrong ("Shem") though maybe some people do say SHEE-em, but not "SHEE-am". I'm studying ESL and have had to do drills on IPA, and of course it being a British company I fail certain words because of the accent/vowels desired by the test.... The BC Names page says on some undated map that "She-am" is an approximation of the Halkomelem word for the lowland (Rosedale Prairie) beneath this mountain, but if so that's archaic; adaptation into English in the Valley by now (Fraser Valley), where I'm from, is decidedly "Shem" or if anything like the older pronunciation "She-em", -am wound sound really stilted and "newbie" (at least newbies don't say Tshee-am or I've never heard one, I imagine some might). Now about Chemainus the syllable breakdown is Sheh-May-nus or Shuh-MAY-nus, not "SHEM-ayn-us"; maybe both pronunciations should be there; not sure if that second example is to be a schwa or like in "cut"/"shut"..... the BC accents are generally fairly lazy about vowels i.e. "levelling" lots of things to a schwa. I'll make a recording later maybe. I'm not from the Island, and it's true people from Chemainus might be particular about either/or.... but I doubt it. I'd poll some friends I have on the Island - but none of them know IPA.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Shah" comes to mind, but then I mean the Canadian way of saying that, not the British; I guess that example is the same as Sha-na-na.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've changed it to the cut vowel in the meantime so that it won't throw an error. I know lots of Americans don't distinguish it from the schwa, might be the same for you. — Lfdder (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, though there still is a discernible difference between Washingtonians and BCers.....though maybe not about that. Can you fix Mount Cheam too please? Though the pronunciation as given could be stated to be a reference to the Halqemeylem pronunciation of their term for Rosedale Prairie.Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it definitely pronounced with the cut vowel? Not bed or father? — Lfdder (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely pronounce it with the cut vowel or maybe the schwa; using the vowel in "bed" or "get" would seem stilted to me but like I said probably best to include both; the one guy I know from Ladysmith (next door) is from Nova Scotia and has a thick Annapolis Valley country-boy accent, I have a few friends in Duncan but one's on holiday in Ecuador, the other might offer an opinion.... thing about BC is between the Island's cadre of ex-Britons and also the wide variety of German-background and other Euro-backgrounds, including in Chemainus itself, pronunciation may vary and the "bed" vowel may be just as much in use as the schwa; "father" a bad example because the 'a' in that varies from dialect to dialect. FAWther vs FAther vs Fther etc. (don't have the ipa 'ae' symbol handy).Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As in the 'u' in "omnibus", or can we just use the 'a' of "comma"? — kwami (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalking my talkpage huh?Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And for the record I don't know what your own accent is, but in mine there's little distinction between the two examples you're positing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder - um thanks, but no that's not right. The vowel is not as "cut" but as in "bed". Maybe sometimes with a very brief 'y' after the "sh" - but not as the previous version had it as a second syllable, more of a diphthong but we kinda do that with "shed" and "shit" too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops -- I was asking about Cheam the 2nd time above, I guess you thought I meant Chemainus. — Lfdder (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

About Cheam, I'm not sure if the Halqemeylem given ( /ʃɛm/ and /ˈʃiːæm/ in English, in Halqemeylem)is accurate because of what the BC Names cite says, that Shee-AM is "closer" to the original Halqemeylem, and so substituting "am" may still not be enough; myself I don't have a Halqemeylem dictionary handy.... the Sto:lo Atlas probably has particulars (incredible book btw); I may have asked for somewhere for an IPA for this page (I haven't looked all the way back into the file history, I might well have) but didn't look close at the results as not understanding IPA much then (slowly better now). I think what BC Names might be referring to also is that some people might assume that it's "Tsheem" or another Tsh sound on the start; and that it doesn't rhyme with "beam".Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sahtu & Nahani

The name Slavey (derived from slave , and the suffix -y cannot cover its bad meaning: they are not slave, also nobody is not slave) is very very racist. This is a snub. The "Slavey" proper is the South "Slavey" and formerly called as Etchaottine (nowadays as Echo Dene in the name of Echo Dene School, Fort Liard). Dene Tha (for people) and Dene Dháh (for language) and Dehcho for the South "Slavey" (tr:Denetalar for this people, and tr:Denetaca for their language). The North "Slavey" is the Sahtu people (en-wiki: separate page) and Sahtu language (en-wiki: not separate page). The Sahtu is tritypic (K’áshogot’ine ᑲᑊᗱᑯᑎᑊᓀ Sahtúgot’ine ᓴᑋᕲᒼᑯᑎᑊᓀ , Shihgot’ine ᗰᑋᑯᑎᑊᓀ ) and most common in Canada, and in my opinion: likeable. The name Nahani (Nahanni, Nahane) for Central Cordillera Athabaskan-speaking Kaska, Tahltan, and Tagish peoples, and not used for Southern Tutchone people (Kwäch’än) and Shihgot’ine (Mountain) bands of Sahtu people. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the Tahltan and the Kaska do not use it for themselves...maybe those closer to the Nahanni River? I was just noting the Nahane type names on the Slavey language page, and also noting the territorial overlap for BC..... per the racism of t he Slavey term, would a split between South and North into Sahtu and Deh Cho work; he was sloppy in that dab page, as Deh Cho are only South Slavey..... the racism of "Dogrib" (Tlicho) he was unconcerned about also, like various other terms where his nose is on his bookshelves and not in the real world, or the modern day.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

the "we don't care what the people preferred to be called" line is grating every time I've heard it; it's surfaced in the Squamish RMS and CfDs repeatedly, with NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS cited in response, as if avoiding inappropriate and/or derisive terms were "censorship".....WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) never gets cited, only his precious self-authored WP:NCLANGSkookum1 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Films set in Vancouver

Sorry, I've had to reverse your deletion of my text in this subsection of the main Vancouver article, though I have retained the list title you added, and added a little more material myself. The reason for the reversal is that the subsection title specifically refers to films SET in Vancouver - where it appears as itself - not merely to those FILMED there. The list title you have added is useful, as it enables the reader to find out more about the city's use as a general location for filming (particularly as a stand-in for U.S. cities), but as I'm sure you can see, the subsection title refers to something quite different! Regards Tai kit (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phra Nakhon District may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• including ]. Neighboring districts are, starting from the north, clockwise) ], ], ], and across the ] [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chipewyan people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The Denesuline people are part of many ]s] spanning Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
• * ] (Reserves: Fort Smith Settlement, Salt Plains #195, Salt River #195, Fitzgerald #196 (Alberta), ca.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pauquachin First Nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '' is the ] of the ] group of ]-speaking [[Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast|indigenous peoples. Their reserve communities and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kwikwetlem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Kwikwetlem''', whose name is on the modern map as that of the City of ], , ], are a ] [[Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast|
• ] whose traditional territories and modern reserves are located in that city and its neighbours ] and ]. Speakers of ], the Downriver Dialect of [[