Talk:Stillaguamish 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)

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 18:43, 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 basis of the proposed move is the assertion that the people are the primary topic for the unqualified word "Stillaguamish", when compared with the river and the reservation. Neither the nominator nor any other editors offered any evidence to support this assertion; no comparison of wikilinks, page views, or usage in reliable sources. The policy at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests various factors to consider, but assertion by editors is not one of them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stillaguamish people → Stillaguamish – target is small dab page with three items directly relating to the people, including the people article as Stillaguamish (tribe), and the river article. Originally created as a dab on Sep 4 2003 by 67.75.225.201 then redirected to current title by Uysvdi on Jan 3 2011 There is no reason the two secondary titles cannot be addressed in a hatnote instead of taking up the primary name as an unnecessary dab page. Skookum1 (talk) 07:04, 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) 12:30, 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 02:40, 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) 04:17, 22 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.