This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
If it ain’t no other potlatch ban, I’m going to move this article. Sure, I know Canada is hardly a real country, but we can let it sit in the regular namespace, without being tagged, just like all the undisambiguated events that have happened in other places. —Soviet Canuckistan19:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world it's almost always capitalized as Potlatch Ban, also referred to as the Anti-Potlatch Law...."wiki lowercase-ism" running amok changing spelling/capitalization conventions because MOS people don't have a grasp on reality and want to change it to their own preferences. Capitalize this; I'm not going to log in to do the move, but it has to be done......do I have to cite it to prove it? Read the references!58.8.198.33 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (Skookum1)[reply]
Just moved it. I agree wholeheartedly; MOS gets interpreted way wrong all the time; MOSFOLLOW overrules all of it, but that gets ignored all too often.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]