Talk:X̱wáýx̱way

Creation and Collaboartion

I remember in the aftermath of the storm, the Globe and Mail, or the Vancouver Sun, published a feature story on the history of Stanley Park. It went into detail about the eviction of August Jack and other event around the theft of the area. It's interesting to note that the Stanley Park page mentions little about the 99 year lease from the Crown, when Crown land is usually automatically up for land claims, especially when the Park is unceded territory. I have this striking feeling the media will be following this soon. If or when it comes out and a media scrum happens between the Squamish Nation, the Parks Board, and the City of Vancouver, this article will probably be a good one to work on since it will be a strong indicator of existance in Stanley Park. Mention of the remains excavated in he late 1890's, the eviction of the people, the villages, the other stories around this village. I'll pull out my "Stanley Park Secrets" and start citing sources right away. Any help would be appreciated! OldManRivers (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (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. Xoloz (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• X̱wáýx̱way → Xwayxway
• X̱wemelch'stn → Xwemelch'stn

– much as I don't like to have to, given what's happened at Sta7mes re the name change to the ambiguous Stawamus there, in order to prevent further such moves to allegedly more correct names I am requesting these be moved to regular romanizations in normal ASCII; there are several possible spellings for both of these, but per WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification what the people prefer to call themselves, in these cases extended to the communities ("villages" is an inadequate name, partly because of the implications of "village" on dabs in BC, per what I commented on Talk:Stawamus#Requested move about that. I have omitted Esla7an from this RM because any other spelling for that is completely archaic or would induce a mispronunciation e.g. "Eslahan", though historically the more common rendering is Ustlawn. In terms of similar "anglicizations", Chiyakmesh cannot be moved to Cheakamus because of huge disambiguation problems and a primary topic that is decidedly the river, and not even the two locations other than the reserve community that go by that name already. Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Senakw is also in the category, its historical rendering was "Snauq" or "Snawk". The native form once again is preferred re WP:NCET.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:DIACRITICS Wikipedia neither encourages nor discourages diacritics. So the question should rather be if the article is best here or at Whoi Whoi and Homulchesan respectively, bot whether they should employ diacritics. Google book and scholar searches ignores diacritics (A problem well identified by In ictu oculi with regards to Vietnamese diacritics). A quick search of both shows no shortage of hits for Xwayxway and when you examine each they appear to employ the diacritics rather consistently.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If that was the case, why all the virulent criticism of Skwxwu7mesh and other titles for "not having English characters" (that's not verbatim but the gist of many complaints, such as "gibberish" and "this is stupid" and "what's the 7 mean?"). I'm well aware of lots of slashed-L titles out there and more; my intent here was to prevent the "anglicization" of this by someone who didn't like the look of Sta7mes and moved it to "Stawamus" based on google searches that included the mountain, river etc, and the IR name; and is pronounced differently. This is an attempt to "head off at the pass" suggestions the Chiyakmesh should be Cheakamus (village) as was done on the RM at Sta7mes (even though that infers a village municipality; I had dabbed it as Stawamus (Skwxwu7mesh village) in line with Haina (Haida village) so there could be no mistake of what was meant by village; that point has gone unanswered by the person who did that. I"m more than fine leaving this as it is, and its creator User:OldManRivers will be happy for sure, but there are going to be others who view this title as "not English" and will try and change it to something more suitable to their linguistic prejudices and narrow viewpoints.Skookum1 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The difference between this case and the others you cite is that here you remove just the diacritics, the others it's in fact different spelling and not a matter of diacritics. --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • WTF?? That's picayune; underscore-X vs X *is* a "spelling" issue, they are not the same characters; same as with the old /t'/ in the former special character St'at'imcets title (the English convention is to use t-apostrophe in to replace the conjoint t-special apostrophe single character of the van Eijk system; that is a spelling difference too, from the "old" "Stl'atl'imx" spelling which indicates the TL sound of the t-apostrophe but is a visual approximation of same (which is why a standard 7 instead of the below-the-line 7 used in actual Skwxwu7mesh snichim and Shishalhalem and others) or the underscore X in Skwxwu7mesh's original incarnation; the colon in Sto:lo is not a standard English character either (in Halqemeylem it's two inverted triangles; approximations of other character sets abound. Skwxwu7mesh is every bit as mcuh of a "spelling difference" from the mispronunciation encouraged by "Squamish" (and "Stawamus" also) as is this title. I reject your interpretation categorically....as nit-picking. And from WP:Wikilawyering:
        • 2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
        • 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
      • Underlying principles are in short supply around here....someone is going to bitch about thesee special characters, which like the /7/ are "not English" and "unpronounceable, or else we'd see this "anglicized" to its modern name Lumberman's Arch (actually teh Stanley Park Zoo is part of the same location also).Skookum1 (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
        • The only difference between X̱wáýx̱way and Xwayxway is their diacritics, the base letter spelling is the same. With Sta7mes vs Stawamus or Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish the spelling is entirely different, the differences going beyond just diacritics (aka accents). The underlying spirit of the policy was to deal with modified letters not alternate base letter composition.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
        • UJ3RK5 and Deadmau5 serve as examples of the use of numerals in titles; Sto:lo also has a nonstandard use of a standard ASCII character.Skookum1 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
          • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
            • Yeah, and so?? The legitimacy of Deadmau5 was hard-fought over and has been restored to that proper title. There is such a thing as WP:PRECEDENT also.Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Skwxwu7mesh" also shows up in searches, in diacritical form and otherwise; you are making no sense and I must refer again to the two wikilawyering points cited.Skookum1 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I may refer you to again to WP:DIACRITICS. I have to be honest I don't care for your tone. I may equally refer you to Wikipedia:Etiquette.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My "tone"? Try some AGF instead of oversensitive accusations; I'm saying that you are comparing apples with apples. If diacritics were a hard and fast guideline in the way you are claiming, the first Squamish RM would never have gone the way it did. And you are wikilawyering by narrow intrepretations of only one guideline. The full context here has to be considered. And yes, what you are saying makes no sense, that's an observation, not a personal attack.Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You accused me of wikilawyering and then tell me to that I need to assume good faith. Maybe have a look at Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. I think I've made the arguments I need to here. I remain opposed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OH, I know all about "pot kettle black I get enough of that thrown at me. I observed that you were in violation of two of the wikilawyering points; that's an observation, not an accusation.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics. Wikipedia does not and, for those readers intimidated by unusual typography, the diacritics can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with them can ignore the accents et al. Wikipedia is an online, Unicode-based reference work that need not reflect archaic typographical limitations. This is the practice we follow with all other Latin-alphabet languages (save one) no matter how strange the diacritics. (cf. Lūžņa (Latvian), Baħar Iċ-Ċagħaq (Maltese), Świętochłowice (Polish), Rădăuți (Romanian), Söğüt (Turkish)), and Đắk Lắk (Vietnamese). Even in other English-speaking countries, this practice is followed (e.g., Māori people) If you want to move it to the "English" name (Why-Why or Whoi Whoi) to avoid diacritics, fine, but otherwise I see no reason why this case should be different. —  AjaxSmack  02:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You are out of your depth here; I know this place and its history well, though not as well as the editor who wrote this, who is a Skwxwu7mesh language teacher and cultural activist; I was fine with the diacritical versions of his titles, after much initial hesitation years ago; but in light of what has happend with Sta7mes and Skwxwu7mesh the intent of this RM was to prevent another such bastardization as Stawamus (village) (which is an incorrect dab) or the rants against the "gibberish" and "stupid" "Skwxwu7mesh" which were an ugly feature of all RMs and CfDs concerned. The case is different with Sto:lo where only one tribal council uses the diacritical version, and which is a term in common use in English without any diacriticals, as is also with St'at'imc and certain others - but rail against the /7/ all you want as a "non-English character"....so is the colon /:/ in Sto:lo. You're nitpicking in defence of one title adn nitpicking again in justifying the misleading anglicization of Sta7mes because of that 7. Spa7omin, which is the name of the Okanagan/Syilx group at Douglas Lake, is used regularly in regional English in that area, rather than the misleading "Spahomin" which is a legacy of teh times when /h/ and, as with Stawamus, /w/ were used for a glottal stop.

• • I'm fine with leaving this title the way it is, but only if precedent and consistency are recognized in this category re Sta7mes - and also Skwxwu7mesh, which also as "Squamish people" is now completely out of sync with the rest of the main BC ethno category, where the mandate to use native-spelling endonyms was affirmed by informed consensus last year; the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish discussions were uninformed consensus and pointedly ignored those other examples and the fact that the title there had been stable for five years before being "anglicized". SALT all these titles in their native form; Sta7mes/Stawamus is going to get re-RMd or better, and Skwxwu7mesh will be too, and that $#%##$ Category:Squamish will not be a "disambig category" as a bad compromise, but the town's category once that is RMd properly to conform to the patterns mandated by WP:CSG#Places.

• • As for Whoi whoi or why why, that speaks to your ignorance of t his place; Jean Barman uses Qwhy qwhy, there are maybe seven other forms; whoi whoi and why whuy are 19th Century, which indicates to me how very little you know about this topic despite your insistence that you have a right to pontificate about it and interlope on its titling issues. No doubt there will be someone who wants to merge it to Lumberman's Arch if that is ever written (I was going to but because of all the ongoing b.s. in Wikipedia it's among the many titles I've never had time or energy to address).
  • Keep this title the way it is, but SALT it to prevent bigots and t he "Use English" crowd with their chauvinistic wrecking ball from coming through and fracking it like they have done with so much elseSkookum1 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Romanization or ASCIIisation at the expense of accuracy is undesirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? Tell that to the people who "anglicized" Sta7mes and so viciously attacked the old diacritical form of Skwxwu7mesh and replaced it with the wrong-pronunciation "Squamish". I"m fine with keeping it the way it is, but my worry is as explained above to AjaxSmack that some tomfool with bigoted attitudes towards native names will come and change it to something undesireable; and remember, this is English Wikipedia and when these names appear in print, special diacriticals and underscores are not used unless in advanced academic works or museum-type publications; in the media and other more "popular publications" Xway xway and also Qwhy qwhy (which in the old spelling system used for Skwxwu7mesh snichim had an underscore-Q, I believe. "accuracy" pertaining to totally authentic native orthographic systems is not on the table, and St'at'imc and Sto:lo and others are demonstrations of that.Skookum1 (talk) 12:40, 1 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.

• Skookum1, I may be out of my depth here. Generally, I like your position. If your proposed target is no less "accurate" than the current, then maybe I !voted wrong. If the accurate name is not able to be rendered in the title, then I don't know what is best, something close, or give up and go ASCII? In your nomination, I found myself unpersuaded that there was a problem with the current title. In terms of tomfools, my wish is that non-authors of the article should not be allowed to drive renames of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the RM at Talk:Stawamus (village)#Requested move, and I could list a few RMs and CfDs about Squamish titles also i.e. Squamish BC vs Squamish people/Skwxwu7mesh likewise but for now, unfortunately, that's a DEADHORSE because of all the people not really familiar with either and not in a position to know what the PRIMARYTOPIC is, or just hostile to native names altogether. All were substantially authored as well as titled by User:OldManRivers, who has given up arguing with non-natives and is no longer with us, though perhaps monitoring this.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please SALT this title?

This and Xwemelcht'sn need to be salted so they can't be subjected to "correction" by people who IDONTLIKEIT like was done with Sta7mes?Skookum1 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Both redirects have been tagged with the R from title without diacritics template. That should do the trick.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll see, I guess. Time will tell.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X̱wáýx̱way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100729025940/http://www.canada.com:80/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=4286a015-9cbf-43ae-827f-00c5c5eae3f0&k=34270&p=1%29 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=4286a015-9cbf-43ae-827f-00c5c5eae3f0&k=34270&p=1)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)