Talk:Comox

Exclusive to BC?

Is the term Comox used exclusively for things in BC? I've tried finding non-BC references on the internet (by excluding "BC" and "British Columbia" from the search query), but the result was nearly a million hits, the first 200 or so which were related to BC. If it is exclusive to BC, we could update this dab page accordingly, and probably make it simpler as a result. Mindmatrix 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive to BC AFAIK; unless there's a word/placename in some obscure language somewhere in the Great Beyond. Unlike Squamish, which was historically a variation of what is now officially Suguamish in Washington, in various usages; Comox I've never seen a hint of south of the line. NB note creation of Sumas (disambiguation) which I just realized doesn't have the Sumas II power project on it; Comox is what it is. I used to think it was from CJ but apparently, as in the recent edit, it's a Kwak'wala word....Skookum1 (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, it's very debatable what hte primary or best-known usage is here; easy enough to think it would be the town of Comox, but to linguists (who are far more numerous than citizens of Comox) it's a language and a people.Skookum1 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the opening wording/explanation, best to see BCGNIS listing "Comox"; the town derives its name from teh people, not the other way around.Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And NB the Island Comox band government is part of the Kwakiutl District Council and their preferred spelling is something like K'omoks, plus an accent-mark or two; but not in English IMO....Skookum1 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The etymological history on that page is quite interesting. It should be included in one of the Comox articles. Mindmatrix 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of nominating this for a page move. I can see how phrases such as "the Comox" would refer to the people, and "in Comox" may refer to the language. This will certainly stay as a dab page. Mindmatrix 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if Lillooet is still a dab page, but originally it had been to the people only, not even the town; again no real primary use and a confusing etymology/geography as well....Squamish wasn't even a redirect to the town but was what is now Squamish (wind), until I found it that is. "The Chilcotin" usually means the region, unless you know it's a people you're talking about (or in some contexts an individual, as in "the Chilcotin got the horse and brought it around back" (prob. in the context of there being another kind of Indian there, i.e. in the scene). Others have resulved themselves in recent years thanks to "cultural correctification" - Bella Bella now can go the town directly as Heiltsuk is now widely-accepted for the people, similarly with Bella Coola/Nuxalk or "Rivers Inlet" now no longer referring (so much) to the Wuikinuxv (Oowekeno) except again in linguistics and ethnography; in other cases like Kwakiutl it gets very complicated because of the same "correctification" (and it's not even a town-name); Nanaimo/Snuneymuxw (sp?) and Sooke/T'zouke have likewise beein simplified as issues. Friend just came in, but I've rambled enough anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but what does this have to do with our discussion about Comox? Mindmatrix 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar cases, that's what; esp. Squamish and Lillooet; I caught the comment on the Cities board about native names and undisambiguation, so put in two bits here about parallels to Comox; which I assumed was one of the locations/names referred to......Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 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: No consensus, not done. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Comox → Comox (disambiguation)
• Comox, British Columbia → Comox

– Under WPCanada disambiguation practices, unique town names do not take the comma-province disambiguation. The Comox title was created before this convention came into wide application. Other examples with name-conflicts with local indigenous groups of such town-name titles are Kamloops and Nanaimo and, sigh, Squamish; but the overwhelming primary topic in English of such names is invariably the town. See the RM on Talk:Squamish as to the rationale that, since aboriginal preferences are not something Wikipedia, allegedly, is free to disregard, it seems that the deference to the primary, if not primary topic, of their names, is no longer useful. WP:POINT perhaps, but it seems others are making a huge WP:POINT out of COMMONNAME with no regard for any other guideline or prevailing context within Wikipedia or even within the real world, why keep up the facade any longer?Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - works well at present, doesn't need fixing. On an Android type "Comox" and (1) Comox, [the dab] (2) Comox, British Columbia, (3) Comox (electoral disrict), etc. come up. Why ambiguate the town? A dab is the natural content for Comox. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • PRIMARYTOPIC of "Comox" is the town; the air force base and the electoral district are named for it, but they are nowhere near the primary usage. Not even close. Why not de-disambiguate the town, since guidelines for Canadian town names call for it? There's also Kamloops (electoral district) and Kamloops Indian Band but the PRIMARYTOPIC is the City of Kamloops - which is not given as Kamloops, British Columbia, likewise Kelowna, Penticton, Chilliwack and many more. A dab is not needed for the town of Comox, indeed, and that's why this nomination; yes there's the Comox Indian Band and K'omoks people etc but, given what we're learning about what Wikipedia doesn't recognize or care about at the Squamish RM/CfD, why play favourites? In fact, there since the town, like Comox, is the primary topic, there is as you will note a parallel RM, which yes is WP:POINTy given all that's gone down there, but there was a reason that the Comox, Squamish and Lillooet disambiguation pages existed; deference to the root topic's importance within the BC cultural landscape; but since Wikipedia, so proclaimed, doesn't have to care about any of the first people's concerns, why disambiguate them as if their articles were equal to the PRIMARYTOPIC...which under Canadian disambiguation guidelines means that the Town of Comox should not have the comma-province disambiguation; and neither should Squamish; gee, should I do one an RM for Lillooet, too? Hmmmmm huh? All these disambiguation pages and the disambiguated town names and related indigenous categories and main articles were created as they are because of the cultural/geographic collisions which those of us familiar with the turf tried to lay out in a sensible fashion. Since those sensible and, until the applecart got upset by people with no real knowledge of the topics or the geography, started playing with titles on a guideline/item-by-guideline/item basis, with no regard for the consequences or the for the ethnographic groups whose common names also happen to be the same as those of major bits of BC geography; that they created alternate spellings to differentiate themselves; T'zouke for Sooke, WSANEC for Saanich, Tz'umenus for Chemainus, Quwutsun for Cowichan.....and K'omoks for Comox, Skwxwu7mesh for Squamish. Since the cultural and geographic context, or local-Wikipedian advice, mean nothing when the hammer of Wikipedia guidelines comes down, why respect this at all? Why not apply other guidelines...which in the case of stripping Squamish's town article of its disambiguation, highlights and confronts the problems that the naysayers against native names for themselves, names that wikipedians consensually decided were the best way to go to deal with such conflicts, but that wikipedians in more recent times have shoved aside without even wanting to understand...and also we wanted to represent native peoples properly so that they would be encouraged to contribute and partake of wikipedia, instead of to throw up their hands at white people telling them who they're allowed to be - which is in fact why OMR left, and others before him. WP:POINT yes perhaps, but if one guideline is good for the goose, then how about a guideline good for the gander....if it points out that the goose's guideline needed more consideration, perhaps an exception. These town articles were disambiguated before we became aware of the no-comma-province-for-unique-town-names-for-Canadian-articles came about. Likewise, let's see, Nipissing in Ontario, there's more. In BC the Nanaimo Indian Band, the Nanaimo subgroup of Hunguminum (Island Dialect of Halkomelem) very pointed chose Snuneymuxw First Nation to distinguish themselves from the City of Nanaimo; the Squamish Nation have not yet embraced a native spelling like other peoples have done, but as with Sechelt Indian Band as a government, the people are the Shishalh, which was changed unilaterally to Sechelt people by another "anglicizer" (as if Sechelt were an English word)....gee, it doesn't even have a 7 or a colon in it.....WP:POINT yes, but since guideline-tossing wikipedians are so into guidelines, let's apply a few more and just create chaos where before there had been order? Sound good?? Because chaos is where we're at now....Skookum1 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The town is the primary use and the move conforms to the applicable naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE. "[W]orks well at present, doesn't need fixing" is not a valid rationale. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not clear that there is a primary topic so the current situation is the best. WP:CANSTYLE does not override the need for the place to be the primary topic. So that is not material for this proposal. Works well is totally acceptable when there is no primary topic or it is unclear if there is a primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sechelt is the primarytopic there, and that's why it's not disambiguated. But the Shishalh are way more numerous than the K'omoks. The primary use in English in Canada (not on linguists' shelves in Virginia or Fife) is very clearly the town. Not to the same degree as with Kamloops or Nanaimo vs their respective Indian bands, but still far and away clearly the town vs the people...same as with Campbell River First Nation or Williams Lake First Nation or Lytton First Nation (though in those cases the "FOO" town does need disambiguation) . As for CFB Comox, it's not like the bases at Halifax at Esquimalt are more of a primary topic than the town (Esquimalt is a redirect to its primary topic which currently - so far - has comma-province attached to it; I just haven't gotten there yet (might as well file that RM right now). So it's a combination of Canadian disambiguation practices and the on-the-ground reality of "town/region names based on adaptations of native names are the primary use"....and the context of this within Canadian English is what is on the table. All the non-band uses of this term devolve directly from the town (other than the Comox Peninsula) derive from the name of the town - the base, the ridings etc (ridings are electoral districts, provincial and federal, in case you don't know that usage). Yes, there are a lot of meanings for Comox, but other than the K'omoks and the peninsula, they all derive from the name of the town.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • And yes, I'm partly tidying these unneeded disambiguations around BC because of the silly primarytopic dispute re Talk:Squamish#Requested move et al., now in glorious clusterfrack near you. As there, the town is the primary topic but getting people to accept that when they're not familiar with BC and assert that the people are the primary topic or equally the primary topic, without even supporting that people's own preference for the name that should be used despite clear guidlines to that effect is a dazzling display of Wikipedian conundrum-chewing at its finest. In all cases such as Chemainus, Squamish, Esquimalt, Sechelt, Comox and more the town is the primary topic. Telling that to someone from Nevada or Virginia who's determined that that's not the case is becoming tiresome. CANENGL rules here, not just CANSTYLE.Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 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.

• COMMENT on this closure. The two opposing votes here fielded invalid logics per WP:UNDAB and CANSTYLE; only Skeezix and I are Canadians of those here; RMs are not supposed to be "votes", and invalid "votes" should be discounted by the closer. Comparing the electoral district named for the town as if it were equal in nature is invalid, and Vegaswikian's unfamiliarity with any of the topics "It is not clear that there is a primary topic" is not borne out by an examination of the items, or by the rules on WP:UNDAB or by anyone who actually knows British Columbia's geography and has a lick of common sense. Looks like this one, along with the Squamish one that just got closed, is going to have to go to Move Review....this should have stayed open longer, and more people familiar with the topics in question heard from. IMO closers on such items should also be familiar with the items in question themselves, and also re CANSTYLE.Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was open for over 12 days, which surely is an adequate length of time. Closure is not (supposed to be) a WP:SUPERVOTE. If there's no consensus for a pagemove, then it doesn't happen. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The incorrect claims in the two opposing votes are not grounds for "no consensus". Bad information and misperception is what it is; and should not be reckoned in deciding such matters. Skeezix and I are Canadians, I'm not sure about him but I'm from BC; there's no WAY the electoral district is in anyway grounds to argue that the town is not the primary topic; the airforce base is the only possible "parallel use" but even it is named for the town. At least this was 12 days, not 7 like certain others that were hastily closed (IMO to prevent further discussion), but this should have remained open so other Canadians/BCers could attest to the primarytopic nature of the town. WP:UNDAB you should have a good read of; Kamloops, Kelowna, Coquitlam, and Nanaimo, among others where there are "FOO everything" variables are all city articles, and Kamloops (disambiguation), Kelowna (disambiguation), Coquitlam (disambiguation), Nanaimo (disambiguation) are the way to cover "FOO everything" items; unless someone would care to argue their electoral districts are sufficient reasons to re-disambiguate them??Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

YOu are familiar with WP:Consistency and WP:Conciseness, right? don't mean to be snide, just amazed at how much various guidelines are ignored by all parties concerned that have direct bearing on RMs/titles .Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider my position in closing a move request. Well, I don't have to close anything. Yet there's a huge backlog at the moment. I have two possible choices of methodologies. I can decide the issue on the basis of whichever argument happens to strike my fancy, or I can employ a quantitative measure of consensus. Now why do we say that comments in these sort of discussions are "!votes" instead of votes? In a pure voting system, there is no space on the ballots for comments, and no discussion between voters. This means that if the voter is insane, drunk, high on drugs, or just voting a frivolous "kangaroo ballot", the vote counters have no way of knowing this. In a !vote system, comments such as Support bzurhtynadsdakjfa90q3rlasdnkcxnlZNxlSDLKLKJ!!!, Oppose Eggs greenly pervade magisterial nematodes!, Keep per WP:ILIKEIT, are all disregarded. Likewise, while real-life voting systems have no civic participation requirements for suffrage, large numbers of !votes from very new users may be thrown out. However, when comments from established editors rise to a base level of reasonableness, the closing editor would approach WP:SUPERVOTE territory by picking whichever line of argument he happens to prefer. Using a quantitative measure of consensus is the only way to decide between competing reasonable arguments that has the perception of fairness and impartiality. This is why you'll find administrators making "no consensus" RM closures almost exactly like mine. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's fine where reasonable and valid arguments present themselves, this is not such a case; so I submit that backlog/time constraints or not qualitative readings of "votes" should be mandatory; quantitive decisions leave much to be desired, for what to me are obvious reasons in cases like this.Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We obviously differ on where to draw the line on reasonableness. That's expected, since the judgment is ultimately a subjective one. Fortunately, we now have Wikipedia:Move review, just for disputing move request closures. Enjoy! DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you should have a look at the RM just closed now on Talk:Chemainus, British Columbia#Requested move which was resolved to Chemainus. Noting that you're not an admin I'll definitely file a Move Review on this item which should be consistent with other similar town-names in BC (many which also have other alleged-but-not-valid primary topic issues but were resolved in favour of CANSTYLE and because of PRIMARYTOPIC realities.Skookum1 (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

and "thanks" for the make-work project refiling most of the indigenous people RMs you closed on apparently a similar "subjective" basis and without regard to WP:BATHWATER. These are maybe only cursory things you don't have time/inclination to think about in a qualitative fashion, but they're important in the grand scheme of things so I'm "forced" to refile each as a separate RM. Thanks huge. Have a nice day.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Comox people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)