Talk:Siuslaw people

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Siuslaw people → Siuslaw – target is small dab page started on Sept 28 2003 by 67.75.229.189, people article began as Siuslaw (tribe) and was moved to current title by Kwami on June 8 2010 contrary to WP:UNDAB. The people are the primary topic and source-name for all four items on the dab page, directly or otherwise, and so are the primary topic (nobody can tell me that the Nat'l Forest or the river are more notable, or the bridge, which are contrary to WP:UNDAB as far as relevance goes anyway. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 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 02:39, 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) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed lacks precision and severely hurts recognizability, and ultra short titling helps no reader. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – additional ambiguity is not a good thing. The 11-year-old dab page is a good thing.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 2 April 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.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)