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. A numerical majority opposed this move. The various guidelines and precedents didn't all pull in the same direction. No one of them seemed decisive. How should we weigh the fact that the city of Taku in Japan has more residents than the Taku people has members? We'll continue to debate this type of thing long into the future. Linking to the essay WP:UNDAB as though it provides a decisive argument is not helpful; it's just an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taku people → Taku – current page is a disambiguation page, most of the links on which derive from the name of this people; some are about Japanese first names though there is one city in Japan by that name (pop 21,909) and a redlink to a town in India. Taku should be moved to Taku (disambiguation) (currently a redirect to Taku rather than continue under the illusion that the unrelated-to-this-people are equally important usages in English, which they are not. "+ people" as in other cases was a needless violation of WP:UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, as per the other Foo to Foo (disambiguation) move proposals, but in this case in particular Taku, Saga in Japan and the historically significant Taku Forts in China do not derive from the Taku people. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, they do not, as already observed; but the tiny town in Japan cannot be construed as a rival primarytopic in English, and WP:UNDAB is clear about "FOO whatever" vs "FOO", as is the conciseness section of WP:CRITERIA.Skookum1 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skookum1, what having a dab as the primary means is that There is no primary topic, WP:CRITERIA has 5 elements. As far as that essay it may be helpful for someone to put in a proposal to move WP:UNDAB to a title where it is clear that it is only an essay by a couple of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As is also, really, WP:NCLANG, which I have been taunted to 'go ahead and try and change that guideline' as if the cabal presiding over it would ever listen to me (instead of delete my posts and say "get a life" as two of them have... re that clearly anti-CIVIL "get a life" comment two of them are admins and because of that IMO should no longer be.).Skookum1 (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Skookum1 probably you should re-read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to remind yourself of the difference. WP:GUIDELINE and WP:ESSAY are two very different things. A guideline should, in theory, have been adopted by WP:RFC and have community consensus. An essay like WP:UNDAB can easily be fighting that consensus. Although I don't think in this case it necessarily is, but still shouldn't be cited rather than real guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ETHNICGROUP is a guideline no?Skookum1 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is, and it is relevant and applicable to the issues discussed in that guideline. If anything from there relates to this or other RMs you are very welcome to cite from it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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) 12:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. Also the people here would appear to be the primary topic. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Disambiguation aside, the guideline per WP:ETHNICGROUP is that "people" is the preferred nomenclature and that seems eminently sensible. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 09:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That guideline is under dispute, including the two words "preferred" and "unambiguous" re "FOO people", but both are in violation of the terms of TITLE and various other things I am too tired to repeat, here and across other guidelines, and decisions have come down which establish a bloc of precedents, consensus-made, which at least one closer has observed is already there; and as CambridgeBayWeather indicates above it already was. NCL remains flawed in demanding there be the people dab, and resistance to any discussion of changing it to match the widepread emerging consensus is deep and bitter; and hence the two oppose votes below from architects of NCL.
• OpposeThe disambiguation page contains about 30 different items, many of which could be considered the primary topic for people who are not into Canadian and Alaskan indigenous peoples. For example the City in Japan, the Whale or the DJ.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You are evading the point of the MOSTCOMMONUSE and PRIMARYTOPIC in English. That is a very small city, even by Japanese standards, and though the Taku people are less numerous, their territory is the size of New Jersey or more (and other than in Juneau, they are the dominant population). I will run the customary view stats tests and googlebooks as I have done elsewhere; I would be very very very surprised if that Japanese city is viewed anywhere near the times a page on one of the main kwaans of the Tlingit.Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. "Taku" is used for far too many diverse topics, so disambiguation is needed in this case. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]
  • The PRIMARYTOPIC is the issue here, not the diversity of secondary topics; only "Taku" is a candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC, not Taku River and, unless it is shown to have more views and English sources/googles, the Japanese city is an also-ran. Ongoing opposition to reverting undicussed moves instigated by NCL is getting repetitive, and as always is full of factual and logical and evidential holes:
    • 1) Opining that a 13th-century Tosafist rabbi from Bohemia, an Albanian soccer player or a Cameroonian soccer player might be more of a PRIMARYTOPIC as a surname, in English, is rather reaching, don't you think?

• • • 20 The people-name is what the other various North American titles on the dab page are derived from, via the river being named for them (perhaps by them, I don't know their name for the river); Taku River and Fort Taku (of the HBC not the forts in China) are maybe more known the people, I'd venture without having done the view stats yet, but they are not disambiguation candidates by dint of being two words, not the standalone version.

• • • 3)I have revised the dab page to group things accordingly, rather than in the seemingly random list of supposedly unrelated names suggested by its former state. Of the Asian items, the Taku Forts are the only real candidate; the Japanese personal names included are also not conceivably PRIMARYTOPICS.Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each of these situations are different, and, in this instance, Taku has so many diverse meanings that there isn't evidence that the majority of users are looking for this article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]

• Oppose. None of the topics listed on the disambiguation page have enough significance to satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The status quo should be maintained. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• View stats
  • I'd completely overlooked the whale, who is tucked down inside "Other", and it seems that it is the main search that people do on Wikipedia; even though Taku (whale) is a redirect to List of captive orcas#Taku and so not even a true candidate for a dab; the whale was named for the river/inlet/sound, though he was not caught there but born at SeaWorld Orlando; nor should redirects be used on dab pages at all, as I recall: but here's the view stats on all titles listed; the Taku Forts, which as a two-word item is also not a true candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC status as a standalone term, came a close 2nd to the river:
    • "Taku (whale)" was viewed 3522 times in 201403 (redirecting to List of captive orcas#Taku)
    • "Taku Takahashi" was viewed 4603 times in 201403. How many of those got there from the Taku dab page is unknown; if he is widely known as "Taku" only that would make a case for PRIMARYTOPIC, but as a double-word title it is not eligible as PRIMARYTOPIC and DAB definitions
    • "Taku Sugimoto" was viewed 329 times in 201403
    • "Afrim Taku" was viewed 157 times in 201403
    • "Moses Taku" was viewed 118 times in 201403
    • "Akwo Tarh Ayuk Taku" was viewed 95 times in 201403
    • "Takuma Sato" was viewed 5,280 times in 201413
    • "HMS Taku (N38)" was viewed 145 times in 201403
    • "M/V Taku" was viewed 34 times in 201403
    • "USC&GS Taku" was viewed 27 times in 201403
    • "Taku, Saga" was viewed 208 times in 201413
    • "Taku Station" was viewed 41 times in 201403
    • "Takuu language" was viewed 81 times in 201403; I tried "Taku language" also but there were no results
    • "9574 Taku" was viewed 44 times in 201403
    • "Fort Durham", in older histories known as Taku and also referred to as Fort Taku, was viewed 162 times in 201403
    • "Fort Taku", which redirects to Fort Durham, was viewed 25 times in 201413
    • "Taku, British Columbia", also known as Taku Landing, was viewed 89 times in 201403
    • "Taku Arm" was viewed 18 times in 201403
    • "Taku Plateau" was viewed 77 times in 201403
    • "Taku Inlet" was viewed 130 times in 201403
    • "Taku Harbor" was viewed 108 times in 201403
    • "Taku Glacier" was viewed 501 times in 201403
    • "Taku River" was viewed 315 times in 201403
    • "Taku Forts" was viewed 1305 times in 201403. Like other word-titles it is not a true PRIMARYTOPIC candidate, unless someone can show that this group of forts or the battles that took place there are commonly referred to only by "Taku" this is not a proper candidate for PRIMARYTOPIC for the standalone name "Taku".
    • "Taku people" was viewed 412 times in 201413
    • "Taku", the dab page, was viewed 841 times, indicating that the hits for Taku Forts, Taku Takahashi, Takuma Sato, and the whale Taku mostly did not come to those pages via the dab page.
    • I do not have time to go through every possible item on Special:PrefixIndex/Taku; but the issue here is not double-name titles of any kind, but the standalone version of "Taku" and most common use in English is what counts; all those other Japanese names, many of which can be shortened to Taku, if not Taku already, unless that person is widely citable and unique as "Taku", do not qualify for consideration anyway. Taku (whale) is redirect to a different title and it's clear that searches for simply "Taku" are not where those 3500+ hits from; more likely pipes on other pages mentioning captive orcas or SeaWorld or animal captivity.
  • These results only concern Wikipedia viewer stats and not English as a whole; I have no more time just now to do Google Books and Google News searches, and when I do I will limit it only to the "large-number" items, and not bother with the "small" ones (150 hits or less). Many of the smaller items derive their name from the river and/or the people, though I don't know why Taku Arm is named that, other than maybe it was a source of salmon ("Taku" is Tlingit for salmon, or from the Inland Tlinkit dialect anyway); it doesn't seem to have a connection to the river, though Taku Plateau and also Taku Mountain, which doesn't have an article, and Taku Inlet and Taku Harbor do; was the river named for the people or the other way around? I'm not sure yet.Skookum1 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.