Talk:Sahaptin

Mexican was àßŵèŕþùÿìòpàßðfĝĥĵķĺźxçvɓñm

Tribe or language/culture group?
First noting that the Catholic Encylopedia's definitions/descriptions of aboriginal peoples are largely out-of-date and also not authoritative, I'm not sure here that this should be a "people" page; it is a group of peoples, basically defined linguistically; there is already a Nez Perce page, for instance, and the name Sahaptin as a subgroup of Sahaptian (which includes Nez Perce) includes the Umatilla, Cayuse and Walla Walla, all of which already have pages. I'll reread the Catholic Encyclopedia carefully to see if there's any reason to keep this page; but I get the impression it would best be amalgamated to Sahaptian languages or Sahaptin language; unless a defined tribe exists that is separate from the Umatilla, Cayuse, Nez Perce etc.Skookum1 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I lack the expertise and sources, I can oly wish you good luck finding a good home on appropriate page(s) for all salavageable data from Catholic Encyclopaedia (which still seems to have quite some other Indian articles without Wikipedia page), such as probably a section on Missions Fastifex 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
If this article doesn't get merged, pared down or redirected, it is badly in need of wikification, formatting and general copyediting. Katr67 05:03, 23 November 2006 (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 09:13, 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 18:44, 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: Move. As with other similar moves recently, there appears to be consensus that the people are the primary topic over their language, and should be at the base name. Cúchullain t/ c 22:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sahaptin peoples → Sahaptin – target is redirect to current title, originally created as two-item dab titled "Sahaptin (disambiguation)" by Primetime on Feb 14 2006 then moved to "Sahaptin" by Commander Keane as "(disambiguation)" is superfluous". That title has been deleted and is now a redlink.  Then "redirected to PRIMARYTOPIC" (current title) by Uysvdi on Oct 20 2013. NB for the languages the spelling is Sahaptian and is a different term. Skookum1 (talk) 07:13, 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) 12:29, 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 02:39, 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 Sahaptin is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:14, 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) 17:13, 30 March 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.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)