Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:09, 24 March 2014

Indigenous peoples of North America NA‑class

This page 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 NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Ethnic groups NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Namespace collision

There is a namespace collision here, which is the use of the word People.

For example, Elbonian people should have a category, called Category:Elbonian, that has articles about these people, and then Category:Elbonian people would be the category containing people who *are* Elbonian. Do you see the problem? Normally, a category should match the lead article - but in this case, the lead article has the word people. In some cases, Elbonian may describe a language. So this all leads to much confusion at CFD.

I suggest we get out of this, perhaps by eschewing the use of the word "X people" for ethnic article titles, and coming up with something that won't cause a namespace collision with a category. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, someone else who sees the point of "FOO" alone, without stating it; PRIMARYTOPIC for "FOO language" is necessarily "FOO" and a whole bunch of WP:TWODABS were created by WP:NCLANG which was created without reference to this guideline as it didn't exist yet still being part of the "people" guideline for individuals at the time. Coordination of guidelines should be mandatory especially regarding affected WikiProjects; we now have Inuvialuk people which resulted from the imposition of "FOO people" and "FOO language" on Inuvialuit and Inuvialuktun, which are both common in English whereas "Inuvaliuk people" and "Inuvaluk language" are not = Inuvialuk people directly means "individuals who are Inuvialuk". The imposition of retitling without reference to current usage in the region in question (not just with reference to linguistics/ethnology academic writings on the global scale) plus the "name preferred by the people themselves" and COMMONNAME and MOSTCOMMON mean those titles and similar cases should be moved back; I won't add them to the RM but file separate ones..... Skookum1 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Are black people acceptable subjects for a list?

Is it acceptable under this guideline for a list to be formed around the concept of "black people"? This guideline is currently being cited on Talk:List of African-American Academy Award winners and nominees as the reason it was recently moved from List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and as an objection to moving it back. It has in the past been cited for the same thing in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of black fashion models. All indications are that the next one will be List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. I can't see anything in this guideline that would prevent a list of black people but that is how it is being used and, if possible, I'd like more guidance on this guideline. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

change needed

I don't know if anyone here is aware of the fracas over the imposition of NCL on what had been standalone names that became disambiguated to "+people", on the premise that languages are equally a primary topic as the people who speak it; or that adding that is mandatory based on that guideline, which it's not. Often TWODABS result, and very often all there is from "FOO people" is a redirect to "FOO". The problem with the "FOO people" usage is that that more often means, especially in category names, "individuals who are FOO". More on all that another time, what caught my eye while scanning this guideline (NCET) was this:

A people should not be called a "tribe" unless they are actually a tribe (sub-ethnicity) rather than an ethnic group or a nation

that should be amended, because the "old convention" was that federally-recognized tribes would take the "tribe" dab, and lower-casing meant that it would be "FOO tribe". The term "nation" there is also problematic. All this was discussed before NCL was rewritten to enable the "+people" change in the "old consensus" evolved and in place for a long time before the author of that passage of NCL went on thousands of unnecessary renames/moves....and is now resisting the RMs I've launched on the titles he's changed, even though most of them are only redirects to the current title......and now as before in a string of RMs last year he foughtR tooth and nail against .including anglicizations that are unworkable, obsolete and in some cases derogatory (Slavey for Deh Cho/Sahtu, Dogrib for Tlicho, Chipeywan for Denesuline, I was one of the participants in the "old consensus" and have been meaning to come by and try and codify it for discussion here; among our conclusions/actions was deciding that whether "people", "tribe" or "nation", those terms have too many complications and are in many cases redundant (e.g. Haida just means "people", on Secpwepemc and St'at'imc and Nlaka'pamux the -mc/mx ending means people, similarly the "tin" ending on Athabaskan people names.... . And btw the example for the Walla Walla "tribe" is now "Walla Walla people", and IMO Sahaptin people should be pluralized, which I may be able to do if a redirect is not in the way.Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There are tribes outside of the Americas. Some articles work better as FOO; some work better as FOO people. A one-size-fits-all solution does not work for the world's thousands of ethnic groups, as WP Ethnic groups discovered years ago. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Then why did the revision of NCL not take any of this into account? "some articles work better as FOO" etc., similar to which I've seen other discussions you were in to the same effect. "FOO people" has a bad problem, as you yourself opined re Category:Squamish/Category:Squamish people and when not needed to disambiguate it should not be used.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

there was also no consensus for adding "preferred"

Re this you yourself, Uysvdi, have complained and taken action on the ambiguity of "FOO people". Discussions about this on the People and Ethnic groups naming conventions pages said nothing about including "preferred" in the table. What "consensus" was there for that???Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions

Since this article was cut-and-pasted from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), the previous discussions that led to the development of these guidelines can be found here: Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 7. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

And yet, even though it's lifted from an approved/RfC'd guideline, we have someone claiming it's not valid. And I'm looking for that particular cut/lift, partly to see if and by who 'preferred' (which is POV on this matter IMO) and where the claim (disputed by yourself in many places) that "FOO people" is "unambiguous".Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What the guidelines say

This also applies to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (languages) as both sets of guidelines are being quoted. According to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (languages) the correct procedure is "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this."

This guideline says ""Elbonian people" is preferred as a neutral and unambiguous term. "Ethnic Elbonians" and "Elbonians" are also acceptable. Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group." and "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title."

I have recently seen comments that give the impression some people believe the guidelines mandate or dictate that articles about Foo (be it the people or language) must always be at "Foo people" and "Foo language" (see here and here). However, the guideline does not say that, and can't say that because to do so would make it opposed to the policy Misplaced Pages:Article titles. In some cases the people article will be the predominant term and the should be at "Foo" with the language (assuming it has the same name) at "Foo language". Of course if the language of the people of "Foo" is called "Fooable" and it can be shown to be a common term then it should be at that title instead.

So because of the belief in what the guidelines do not actually say we currently have things like Inuvialuk (a disambiguation) which has links to Inuvialuk people and Inuvialuk language. The word Inuvialuk is rarely used in English. The most common terms for the people and language are Inuvialuit and Inuvialuktun. So rather than having the articles, this applies to other articles but those were the ones I'm most familiar with, at titles that follow the policy and guidelines they are at titles that appear to be little used outside of Misplaced Pages.

I don't think that either guideline needs to be rewritten but that some clarification in them in required so it is obvious that there is not always a requirement for articles to be at "Foo language" and "Foo people". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not eager to jump into this considering the recent climate; however, the unilateral moves of Foo to "Foo people" have stopped in the last year. Every time I find a disambiguation page with two links, I've redirected to the primary topic (usually, but not always, the ethnic group; sometime the language article is the primary topic, based on page views, incoming links, etc.), and these redirects have not been reverted. The discussion that developed these guidelines Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 7#New proposal for "Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes)" included people with different perspectives and was highly productive. One challenge is, even though trends will develop among WP:WP IPNA editors, people editing ethnic groups outside of the Americas have their own protocals, and WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups is no longer very active. Another challenge is this page is not easy to find; perhaps it needs to be linked from more places? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Uysvdi

You'll notice that "Elbonian", the bare root, is not given in the examples of good titles, and this was very much on purpose. This is what many of the recent disputes have been about. If we're to go the way that's been proposed, then to be consistent across the world, then English people should be moved to English, with the latter moved to English (disambiguation), and the same for Germans, Russians, etc. Now, maybe that is the best way to go, but what we should not have are separate conventions for Americans (or just Canadians) or whoever.

I also think its a bad idea to decide primary topic based on page views, so that sometimes "Foo" is about the people, and sometimes about the language. The main reason for the current consensus was to avoid that and the inevitable (and likely both passionate and idiotic) arguments that would ensue. When a language is named after a people, then the people are the primary topic, and it would be odd to have the language occupy the base name and the people be the dependent article. But it would also be odd to have a 13-word stub on the people be the primary article when the language article is 13 paragraphs. Our previous consensus, that neither should be accorded primary status, was an attempt to avoid such problems. It may be that we should revisit that idea, but I think we should come to some agreement on if and how to change before we start setting up walled gardens of regional conventions. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• NA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• NA-importance Indigenous peoples of North America pages
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• NA-Class Ethnic groups pages
• NA-importance Ethnic groups pages
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles