Talk:Clatsop

Remove Chinook Jargon explanation?
There is already an artile on Chinook Jargon, that I've linked in to the text that was already there. Should the description of Chinook Jargon be removed? Tom Lougheed 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

clatsop people are very intelagent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.121.218 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved to Clatsop. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Clatsop people → ? – target is redirect to current title, created by Kwami on June 8 2010 contrary to WP:UNDAB. Despite various Clatsop titles including Clatsop County, Oregon there is no Clatsop (disambiguation) page as of yet. Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
 * 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) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412  T 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Article titles also applies given that Clatsop redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.