Talk:Nisqually people

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 Wikipedia 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

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The evidence of page views and Google searches contradicts the nominator's assertion that the people are the primary topic for this term. The nominator also relies on WP:UNDAB, which is an essay, rather a policy or a guideline. An essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, and may usefully be cited as a place to read a particular line of reasoning, but should not be cited as if it represents a community consensus. One editor also invoked Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). That guideline has been edited significantly in the course of this debate, by some of the participants here, in ways which change the emphasis of the text. It is unclear to what extent any of that guideline represents a community consensus, but the versions before and after these changes explicitly say that "Ethnic groups have several acceptable naming conventions". Is regrettable that one editor chose to misrepresent the guideline as supporting one format over another. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

– 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)
 * Nisqually people → Nisqually
 * Nisqually → Nisqually (disambiguation)
 * Oppose - sorry, Google Books "Nisqually is" does not support a clear case for ambiguating this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * reply The proper phrase to use there is "Nisqually are which gives 272 results; "Nisqually are" -"Fort Nisqually" gives 213 results; some still reference the reference or the placename "near Nisqually", meaning Fort Nisqually and some references to "Nisqually anchorage". Given that the people are the origin'' of the name of the fort, and of the river, and of the glacier, all of which require other words in their titles - and so are not PRIMARYTOPIC candidates for "Nisqually" anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 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) 12:30, 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)


 * Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412  T 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * View stats
 * Diocese of Nesqually has been viewed 13 times in 201403
 * Nisqually earthquake has been viewed 715 times in 201403
 * MV Nisqually has been viewed 100 times in 201403
 * Nisqually Glacier has been viewed 197 times in 201403
 * Fort Nisqually has been viewed 786 times in 201403
 * Nisqually language has been viewed 45 times in 201403 = this is a redirect to Lushootseed
 * Nisqually Indian Reservation has been viewed 110 times in 201403
 * Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation has been viewed 187 times in 201403
 * Nisqually River has been viewed 554 times in 201403
 * Nisqually people has been viewed 647 times in 201403
 * Nisqually tribe has been viewed 244 times in 201403 (redirect to Nisqually people)
 * Nisqually Entrance Historic District, 126 hits --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, 365 hits --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the pretense that the Nisqually River or Fort Nisqually - or what else, exactly? - are PRIMARYTOPIC candidates is a false premise; neither are standalone forms of Nisqually; both are derived from the name of the people, also.Skookum1 (talk) 16:35, 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.Skookum1 (talk) 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 Nisqually earthquake and Fort Nisqually each receive more traffic than the proposed title and that Nisqually River and Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge receive a notable amount of traffic to make it clear it's a fractured ownership. The Nisqually 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 Nisqually (disambiguation) which is a link that only exists at Nisqually people. 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)
 * Replythose 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 Fraser; doubleword titles - never mind four barrelled ones like the National Wildlife Refuge are not in the running.Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic that some terms might not be given value as much as others but I disagree specifically with regards to such article as the river. Assessment of primary topic asks about the "topic sought when a reader searches for that term". The search results have thus far shown that at least 1/5th of the visitors to the dab page are specially looking for the articles other that the one on the people. Throw into the mix that the River, for instance, is just as likely the search term for Nisqually and the fact and In ictu oculi concerns and I have strong doubts of Nisqually people as primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two-word titles are not eligible as PRIMARYTOPIC: that the river was named for the people, and the fort, indicates that they are the primary/original meaning. Quibbling over what people search for when the quibbles are over two-word titles is against PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support—while there are other things with the word Nisqually in them, Nisqually by itself means the people. Pfly (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.