Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nisqually people: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:34, 8 April 2014 editLabattblueboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,780 edits →Requested move: oppose and add two additional stat numbers to the list← Previous edit Revision as of 00:29, 9 April 2014 edit undoSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →Requested move: replyNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
***surely you wouldn't be suggesting that the earthquake might be the primarytopic? It's not called "the Nisqually" though, it requires disambiguation even in speech and is not a candidate.] (]) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC) ***surely you wouldn't be suggesting that the earthquake might be the primarytopic? It's not called "the Nisqually" though, it requires disambiguation even in speech and is not a candidate.] (]) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' In this case, the heavily fractured statistics make it pretty easy to conclude that there is no clear primary topic. It's made no better by the fact that ] and ] each receive more traffic than the proposed title and that ] and ] receive a notable amount of traffic to make it clear it's a fractured ownership. The ] page itself doesn't see significant traffic (116 hits in 201403), less traffic than just about any article on the list. 1/5th of that traffic is actually a redirect from ] which is a link that only exists at ]. So I have a hard time believing that there is actually a problem as everyone seems to be getting to their desired content without any issue. The natural disambiguation of the current title seems most appropriate, it certainly has no shortage of usage in reliable (321 Google book hits for "Nisqually people").--20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' In this case, the heavily fractured statistics make it pretty easy to conclude that there is no clear primary topic. It's made no better by the fact that ] and ] each receive more traffic than the proposed title and that ] and ] receive a notable amount of traffic to make it clear it's a fractured ownership. The ] page itself doesn't see significant traffic (116 hits in 201403), less traffic than just about any article on the list. 1/5th of that traffic is actually a redirect from ] which is a link that only exists at ]. So I have a hard time believing that there is actually a problem as everyone seems to be getting to their desired content without any issue. The natural disambiguation of the current title seems most appropriate, it certainly has no shortage of usage in reliable (321 Google book hits for "Nisqually people").--20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
**'''Reply*** those are not valid candidates for PRIMARYTOPIC, as are many of the items that I did view stats on myself. Only single-word titles are candidates for primarytopic for the stand-term. You should really read both PRIMARYTOPIC and DAB again, closely. Only the river and the fort might be referred to as "the Nisqually" or "Nisqually", respectively but "Fraser River" is not a competing PRIMARYTOPIC at ]; doubleword titles - never mind four barrelled ones like the National Wildlife Refuge are ''not in the running''.] (]) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:29, 9 April 2014

WikiProject iconIndigenous peoples of North America Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Washington Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Separate article on Nisqually dialect of Lushootseed needed

I'm not a linguist, but a regular in the Indigenous peoples' WikiProject; this article is currently an ethno/history article that only mentions the Nisqually language in passing, and the link to it refs to Lushootseed, which it is considered a dialect of. If there's someone capable of at least starting the Nisqually language article please do so; otherwise about in a week I'll just make the stub, as this article should not have the language cats attached to it, which are only for actual language articles...likewise Clallam, Skokomish and other Lushootseed dialects are mostly only on their "tribe" pages, which likewise have the wrong cats (see Category:Indigenous languages of the North American Northwest Coast and note the number of "tribe" articles, vs actual language ones, also wtihin the subcategories.Skookum1 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Census link broken

The "legacy" FactFinder link is redirected to the NEW FactFinder and the search parameters do not migrate. I sent this message in "Feedback":

I'm trying to find a link to Census (or other data) on the Nisqually tribe of Washington state to replace the defunct link to the "legacy" FactFinder in the Misplaced Pages article on that people group. Searching for "Nisqually" here does not yield any information, and the search terms from the old search did not migrate to the new engine. This is unhelpful, certainly not user-friendly behavior. What kinds of criteria do I need to enter to get a hit, or is that sort of data no longer available?

and will see if a useful substitute URL is provided. Meanwhile, I'm removing the broken one. --Haruo (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

– target is dab page by 67.75.225.201 on Sep 4 2003 about the people and the river. Nisqually (tribe) created by same user on same date, then moved to current title by Uysvdi on Sept 20 2013 in process of disambiguating from Nisqually Indian Tribe. The only plausible PRIMARYTOPIC here might be Fort Nisqually, historically often referred to as "Nisqually" but re WP:UNDAB it's not equatable to the main primary topic because it's in the "whatever FOO" format and is not a match. Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Such discussions are not needed; TITLE and DAB and more have already been held as discussions. Each case should be dealt with separately as "one size does not fit all" as one of your colleagues said somewhere in a discussion. PRIMARYTOPIC is very clear, that's another guideline you should read sometime.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Categories: