Talk:Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie 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 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Willapa people → Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie people – The Kwalhioqua and the Clatskanie were both mentioned in this article. Anonymy365 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate more as to why the move was requested. Is the only reason because they were both mentioned? Are/were they two distinct peoples or part of the same group? What is more commonly used in reliable sources? PersusjCP (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they're part of the same group, aside from the fact that they both speak the language that's part of the Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie language group. Anonymy365 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - the peoples' article name should match the related Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie language article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - as per oncamera and Anonymy365

PersusjCP (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• If moved, an en-dash should be used per the MOS: Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie people. Of course, the title proposed here should also be created as a redirect in that case. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Its Language to This Article

I've seen several articles where the ethnicity and the language are in one article. So why not merge the Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie language to this article?

Anonymy365 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Language articles tend to be filled with technical linguistic terms not appropriate for an article about the culture/history of a people. I think Kwalhioqua-Clatskanie language should remain separate as none of the other extinct languages in the Template:Athabaskan languages are merged into the article about the people.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The language and the people are both notable subjects deserving their own articles. It’s comparatively rare that the two would be combined. That undesirable situation usually takes place when the tribe was only briefly written about centuries ago and the language is unattested, which is not the case here. Yuchitown (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
• Oppose The people and their language are both notable. We should not combine the two. As pointed out by Oncamera, technical linguistic terms may not always be appropriate for an article on a people and their culture. Yuchitown brought up an excellent point as well, there is enough distinctive knowledge about both subjects to give them each their own article. --ARoseWolf 12:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)