Portal talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Portal name

The latter use seems inappropriate and its occurrences should be replaced by "Aboriginal Canadians" or better yet, "Aboriginal peoples in Canada"....Skookum1 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are correct ....Pls feel free to do it ..just that i hve tried and portal subpages do not come for the ride!!

Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like they all need something changed in order to get them work; not sure what all the portal subpages are, how long a list is it? Also re the use of the Cdn flag, I though there was an older graphic on {{FirstNations-stub}} but can't find it in the history; I rmeember a NW-Coast-style eagle's/raven's head motif somewhere....in the meantime I'd suggest using the maple leaf from {{Canadian Rockies}}, which is based on the old RCAF logo....but again, I doubt the maple leaf is an appropriate symbol, as it's emblematic of the imperializing country.....tried contacting user:OldManRivers but it seems he's taking his wikibreak seriously and hasn't responded.....he's an artist, was hoping he'd donate something.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal Canadians portal

ok.. Maybe we should list it here i would guess they would know how to move all the sub-pages with this page..I just got them to move a page more info here,, So what do you think we should ask for Aboriginal Canadian portal ..we have to remember people see the word portal,,thats were i messed up before. Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better.....wondering if a white feather would spiff it up... be nice to find a good thunderbird or salmon though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There might be something suitable on the Anishinaabe subproject's pages....maybe something useful for {{FirstNations-stub}}, which needs a better image; ideally it would be the same as on teh portal, no?Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada portal

{{Portal|Aboriginal peoples in Canada}}

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Wizardman 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Portal:Aboriginal Canadians → Portal:Aboriginal Canadian —

was a typo when portal made. I forgot the word portal appears to...So I would move this my self..BUT i dont know how to get the sub-portal page to come along for the ride.... Would like Aboriginal Canadian. We would then see Aboriginal Canadian portal I think "Aboriginal" should be the first word as they were here long before the area got the name Canada...yet we need Canada because it is the country they live in!! ...But lets see what others say!!!!

Dont forget we need the sub pages changed to!!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Portal:Aboriginal peoples of Canada is most appropriate but Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada, suggested by Skookum1 would be equally as acceptable. Portal nomenclature format has already been established with Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes your right Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada would be best ..in the fact that it is the same as the Indigenous peoples of North America..... Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination on Meta

Good day, I started a Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination page on Meta to coordinate the efforts on all small wikis in Canadian aboriginal languages. You are welcome to join and bring your suggestions. Thanks you, Welalin, Amqui (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template creates categories on talkpages

I just noticed this on Talk:Maquinna where the Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada is added by default to the talkpage, and so displays in the category. Is there a switch that can be used to turn off the auto-category associated with the template for talkpage placements?Skookum1 (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Skookum1: I've made this edit, which will remove the talk pages from the category once the job queue gets round to processing them. Is that what you have in mind? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Wondering if the templates in that category should also be "noinclude" although there's a certain utility to having them visible in categories.Skookum1 (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

issues with FN article and cat names...we need to evolve guidelines/"rules"

I won't even try to summarize all I've laid out in the RMs and CfDs, lately, but they are on:

• Talk:Lillooet people
• Talk:Chilcotin people
• Talk:Shuswap people
• Talk:Kutenai people - on that one I think it's Requested Move 2
• Talk:Thompson people
• Category:Squamish and the associated name-change at what is now Squamish people
• Category:Stó:lō‎ - which I don't have right because of the diacriticals in its current for; back in a bit with that edit
• Category:Nuxálk‎
• Category:Sťáťimc‎
• Category:Cree nations
• Comment also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "FOO people" became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......also note the contents of Category:First Nations in British Columbia and what's in the provincial subcategories of Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. My arguments centre on two points; one is that the St'at'imc, Tshilqot'in, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa and Nlaka'pamux names, if not so much Skwxwu7mesh, are now a standard part of Canadian English and the accepted norms. The Canadian English argument has been rejected by some in those discussions as "parochial" and there's a game of cite-stats going on to prove that these articles should stay at the "FOO people" version using the old/archaic/discredited/disused names......and the argument is also made that because "they're not English" is of course absurd when you look around the whole scope of indigenous/aboriginal articles and categories out there. ENGVAR and CANENGL so far don't have any specifics on indigenous-article usages/names and so forth, it seems high time that we do. Official sources, whether prov/gov/RD/muni or from the First Nations themselves are being dismissed by the "Wikipedia doesn't do official names" line. Whatever. But bear in mind that the Haida Gwaii and Salish Sea namechanges didn't come into effect in Wikipedia until they were made official by BCGNIS and CGNDB. If not by official names, what then? By outdated names come up with by anthrologists and still in titles on linguists' shelves. The unintentional chauvinism towards aboriginal peoples in many of the comments I find quite shocking and have said so. Though many others have come forward with my own initial observation/comment when proposing them, that how these people themselves prefer to be called is of great concern; but no, that's thrown out the window by opponents, as if how these people use English is not "real English" and is an imposition on other English speakers. I've provided cite after cite, but never once has anyone shown that, as was claimed by a certain opponent in one case, Kutenai/Ktunaxa, that "many people worldwide know this name (Kutenai)". That these titles will affect category names changes, particularly speedy ones like what happened re Category:Squamish, which IMO is a disaster and have said so in follow-ups to the RM on Talk:Squamish people, and also will wind up seeing countless articles reworded to the archaic older uses, is very, very, very much a concern for anyone wanting to write conscionably and responsibly on aboriginal content/articles. Instead of listening to others who support the RMs and CfDs recommended, opponents have been making them about me and I'm tired of it; it's their way of ignoring the cites and arguments made in response to their points, and also ignoring the constructive comments coming from other editors aware of the issues and problems I've raised. The Category:Cree nations one is a horse of a different colour, and it's become a largely two-way exchange between the defender of that title, User:TillEulenspiegel and myself, and is again too tiresome to want to continue or comment on further; there are no other "FOO nations" categories, for one thing, and as we all know "nations" is a loaded word in the Canadian polity.Skookum1 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also please see the CfD at Category:Chilcotin (region) which is related to what will happen to Category:Tsilhqot'in if the Chilcotin people article is not reverted back to Tsilhqot'in.
• Closing comment suggesting that there be an aboriginal-content working group, or subgroup within {{NorthAmNative}}, and maybe Dene and Cree and other subprojects like what has been accomplished with WP:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Anishinaabe, if that's its name; they've benefitted from having a lot of contributors on their articles, managing to bring order to an extremely complex set of content. Maybe that working group can just be this talkpage, though I understand, I think, this talkpage should be for work on the portal not on issues of aboriginal content at large.Skookum1 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)