Talk:Fort Severn First Nation

89?
I'm curious what the number in the name means. I'm guessing it's some sort of reserve labelling system. Anyone? It might be good to even put an explanation somewhere an article if there isn't one already. -- PullUpYourSocks 03:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To User:Earl Andrew: I noticed you renamed articles like Fort Severn, Ontario to Fort Severn 89, Ontario to add the number. While this is the official designation, I thought Wikipedia convention is to use the most common name. So in the case of Fort Severn, shouldn't we just go by "Fort Severn" without the 89? Samw 03:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved those for consistency. All first nations reserves are given the names that StatsCan uses. This is for the sake of convenience, because- if I were to write an article on a reserve I didnt know much about (aside from having stats on it) I would want to use the official name, because I would know the more common name. Just something to consider. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming_conventions suggests "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". Based on this, I would suggest that Indian reserves that have a historical context, such as Fort Severn, should be simply named "Fort Severn" and "Fort Severn 89" would be a redirect to it. I agree there should always at least be a redirect for the official "numbered" name. Whether or not the main article resides at the numbered name or at a more common name, should be judged on a case by case basis. For this particular case, I vote "Fort Severn" without the 89. Samw 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's best to keep it, just for the sake of consistancy. After all, it does mention "making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I take that as meaning, if I am going to list indian reserves off of StatsCanada, I want it to be "easy and second nature". I admit, that phrase can be taken many ways. However, it would be nice to keep consistent. I'm not sure, but there might even be a Fort Severn community outside the reserve that may belong at Fort Severn, Ontario, but that is just speculation. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Fort Severn First Nations website (listed in the external links) traces the history of the community to the original Fort Severn founded in 1680. So I really think the proper name in the case of this article is just "Fort Severn". Besides, who other than statisticians would refer to their community as "Fort Severn 89"?  Anyways, since I can't seem to convince you :-) I'll leave this be until someone else comes along and "breaks the tie" on this issue.  Samw 03:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 2 articles are warrented. One for the indian reserve at Fort Severn 89, Ontario, and the other on the historical settlement at Fort Severn, Ontario or at Fort Severn, Ontario (settlement). -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 04:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this community should have a number in its title. The number is an StatsCan and AINC identification system that does not belong here. The title convention is for the most recognisable and popular used name. Double Blue (Talk) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I believe that Fort Severn is completely contained with the reserve but if that isn't the case, then expansion can be done within this article or a separate article can be disambiguated for the reserve. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Numbers aren't just used by statscan, I have seen it on road maps, and other government documents. The custom for place names is to use what stascan calls them, especially for more obscure places like indian reserves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agreee the number is valid for most Indian reserves, Fort Severn is different; it has historical significance and my vote is to just use "Fort Severn". Samw 03:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps two articles are needed? One for the historic settlement, and another for the current legal indian reserve. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that Fort Severn is completely contained within the reserve but if that isn't the case, then expansion can be done within this article or a separate article can be disambiguated for the reserve. (Fort Severn First Nation, Fort Severn Indian Reserve, or Fort Severn (reserve). ) Double Blue  (Talk) 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I second Samw's vote. Google for "Fort Severn": 38,400. Google for "Fort Severn 89": 220, of which 2/3 are gov't sites and 1/3 are wikipedia sites/mirrors. Canada Post uses "Fort Severn". Even many (most? vs. ) INAC pages use "Fort Severn" (e.g., ). Fort Severn First Nation of course doesn't use 89, Chiefs of Ontario doesn't use 89, Environment Canada uses "Fort Severn", etc.  Double Blue  (Talk) 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And, I don't agree the number is valid for article titles anymore than I would agree to put SINs or Indian Registration numbers after people's names. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Fort James
The original fort under its original name seems to be unresearchable. Searching for "Fort James" offers nothing but a redirect to the "Fort Severn First Nation," which while undeniably related is not the same thing. IMO the redirect needs to be dropped and the actual fort given its due, in addition to explaining why the First Nations Community has taken this name.— Muckapedia (talk) 21 e août 2022 21h04 (−4h)