Talk:Saanich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary topic issues[edit]

Re this reversion, WP:CSG#Places is very clear in such cases; the only possible secondary topic here is Saanich Peninsula, as the three municipalities are often referred to by Victorians as "Saanich" as a general locational term; as a proper name it is unique as a town name and so CSG applies, despite the ongoing challenge to PRIMARYTOPIC on related RMs, many of which have already been closed in favour of the towns. Because of the hostility towards me evinced on other RMs (including the ones closed in "my" favour) I will put off fielding an RM on this until consulting other Canadian editors on how to deal with such across-the-board and time-wasting (and rather systematic) opposition.Skookum1 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local testimony from an experienced editor should not be so automatically challenged as is become something of a syndrome; I've lived in many of these places....Esquimalt, Sooke, Chemainus, and many more are equivalent to this one and all moved to conform to CSG by consensus/RMs.Skookum1 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:CSG#Places mandate that unique town/municipality/community titles not have comma-province on them. The PRIMARYTOPIC query in the above justification for reverting my previous move of this title to Saanich (disambiguation) was groundless as google searches will easily demonstrate:

  • Oppose – a term this ambiguous doesn't need to have a primarytopic claim. The natural disambiguation does a great job of making the title for the city precise enough to specify the topic of the article; why push back toward a more ambiguous title? Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have read and understood WP:CSG#Places I hope, and noted Chemainus, Sechelt and various others which are very similar precedents; the most common modern usage of "Saanich" is for the municipality, and secondarily for the peninsula; you will never find enough academic papers to support your claim that the people and the langauge are more of a primarytopic than the placename. This has been demonstrated and supported in other CSG-related RMs.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would never make such a claim. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You did on Bella Coola, and others have made similar plaints on related RMs, even though they know nothing about the place and display open disdain for Canadian usages as not being part of "global usage", even though viewstats and searches prove them wrong. There is nothing ambiguous in primarytopic terms about "Saanich" except from those that insist it should be disambiguated to suit their agendas and "outsider" non-knowledge of the facts on the ground, and demonstrable on the web. Read Point 1 at WP:CSG#Places very carefully and take note of other allegedly "ambiguous" names which include those listed above as stand-alone town names. Nanaimo and Coquitlam are effectively no different; and Coquitlam is a similar municipality to Saanich, which is one of Victoria's largest suburbs.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • View statistics
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.

Comment on this close[edit]

One dissenting vote without a single cite or stat to back up its claims, against a slew of thorough googles and view stats, and this is "no consensus, not moved"?? This should have been relisted, or closed with respect to the obvious conclusions determined by the stats/googles. Yes, there is something very wrong in Wikipedia...but it ain't me.Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But your proposal had zero support. I agree we could have waited longer or relisted. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zero support? Google stats and view stats aren't "support"? Your objection was specious and without substantiation, and posits the notion that disambiguated titles are equally PRIMARYTOPICs, which they are not. Your oppose vote has no support, not even for your own claims; the stats prove you wrong; the closer was in error; unless providing stats as expected is "TLDR" and one-line oppose votes based on unsubtantiated claims count more than actual evidence and "local expertise". Where are you located, anyway, Dicklyon? I have friends who live in Saanich, others live in North Saanich, though I don't know any WSANEC (which used to be the title of Saanich people), do you??Skookum1 (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant zero other editors supported your interpretation of the relation of guidelines to evidence. You continue to misinterpretation what I say as somehow about other primarytopic candidates, which is not the point at all. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really huh? Guidelines and evidence are what is relevant here, not interloping suppositions and unsubstantiated claims about allegedly-potential other primary topics. Google stats and view stats were asked for and adjudged accordingly on other RMs, that you maintain they are irrelevant and unsupported is hogwash. Floydian, CambridgeBayWeather and others have cited the same guidelines elsewhere, and it was Floydian who on Talk:Lillooet#Requested move addressed the view stats in answer to the habitual naysayers like yourself. Your "oppose" vote should have been ignored by the closer, the evidence should have been the call; your persistent and rather mindless opposition in all these cases counts as tendentious editing and is clearly disruptive in intent, and serves no useful purpose at all except to seek to subvert WP:CSG#Places.Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Saanich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

stub mostly. stub plus a bit; has refs and there is a separate Saanich (linguistics) article --Skookum1 (6 May 06)

Last edited at 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saanich&oldid=1205143220"