Jump to content

Talk:Yup'ik/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed delete

A prod was put in place last night to delete this article per the concern: "Redundant Yupik article. Yup'ik is the most common spelling by Yup'ik and non-Yup'ik peoples in Alaska. The Yupik article is fully developed and this article is a stub."

An FYI to interested parties know that I'm actively working on developing this article, which will be specific to the speakers of Central Alaskan Yup'ik language rather than a generalist article about all Yupik peoples, as the Yupik article is. Thus, it will be substantially different from the Yupik article. --Yksin 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be renamed to Central Alaskan Yup'ik? I am afraid readers may confuse this to be the same article as Yupik. Also notice that the Yupik article states that Yupik and Yup'ik are the same: "The Yupik or, in the Central Alaskan Yup'ik language, Yup'ik, ...". Labongo 12:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Yupik article would be incorrect to say they are the same: there are at least three subgroups of "Yupik" one of them being the Yup'ik, who are the only (& largest) group with the apostrophe, which denotes a lengthened pronunciation of the p before the apostrophe. The Yup'ik, speakers of the Central Alaskan Yup'ik language, are culturally distinct from the other Yupik peoples, those being the Siberian Yupik (aka St. Lawrence Island Yupik, or Yuit in Russia) & the Pacific Yupik (better known as the Alutiiq or Sugpiaq). The languages spoken are linguistically distinct. --Yksin 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you correct the Yupik article? I don't feel confident enough about this topic to do it myself.Labongo 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps off topic, but is the pronunciation of Cup'ik similar to Yup'ik?Labongo 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation style for this article

This is going to be a pretty citation-happy article (which, when it comes down to, WP articles ought to be anyway, given WP:ATT). So I've got a citation style developed here that I hope other editors will take a look at should they do any work on this article.

Per WP:CITE#Templates:

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article.
Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent and accurate style across articles, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit. Some templates (such as {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}) now also include machine-readable COinS tags.

I am one of those who find citation templates annoying because of how hard they are to read in edit mode, plus to me they require a lot more work than just having a good handle on how to do proper citations to begin with. Thus, this article as I am developing it does not use citation templates, but a fairly standard bibliographic style that is easy to keep consisten. Example:

Book
<ref name="keyword"/>Lastname, Firstname. (yyyy). ''Title of book''. PublicationCity: Publisher, pagenumber(s).</ref>
Newspaper article available on web
<ref name="keyword"/>Lastname, Firstname. (yyyy-mm-dd). [URL "Article name."] ''Newspaper name''. Retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd.</ref>

Etc.

Unlike some articles, this one has an actual list of references (a bibliography) from which the majority of cites come. Cites from infrequently used sources that aren't contained in the reference list follow the reference style above. Cites to specific pages from sources in the bib are done a bit differently, using a standard author/date/page number system. E.g., "Fienup-Riordan, 1993, p. 10." However, because that page might be cited more than once, I still name give each cite a keyword based on the author, name of the book, and page number. Because you can't use page numbers in the <ref> names, I'm simply using the alphabet: A=1, B-2, etc. through I=9, J=0. Hence, <ref name="frboundariesBI">Fienup-Riordan, 1993, p. 29.</ref>, with BI standing for the page number 29.

(Fienup-Riordan's work is so well-represented in this bib that I'm abbreviating her name in the <ref> name as fr, with the rest of the name being an word from the title of whichever book. Hence, <ref name="frboundariesBI"/> refers to p. 29 of her book Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup'ik Eskimo Oral Tradition.)

Hope this explanation helps any other editors who work on this article make sense of what I'm doing. --Yksin 05:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify this plural statement

Currently:

"The Yup'ik people (also Central Alaskan Yup'ik, plural Yupiit)..."

Is that intended to mean:

"The Yup'ik people (English plural Yup'ik(s), Central Alaskan Eskimo plural Yupiit)..."  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.25.34 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify Etymology

In Etymology section currently:


"Yup'ik (plural Yupiit) comes from the Yup'ik word yuk meaning "person" plus the post-base -pik ..."

Is the suffix really =pik, or is it =p'ik ?

If really -pik, a mention might be made of the kp inverting to p' (if that's what's happening) -- or otherwise explain the glottal stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.25.34 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe doesn't mark a glottal stop, but a lengthening of the preceding consonant. It's more like *yuɣ-pik > yuppik (the Proto-Eskimo word for "person" is *iŋuɣ apparently). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well known Yup'ik???

Is Todd Palin a well-kwon Yup'ik? I don't think so. Rather, he is no Yup'ik at all. From a statistic eight Yup'ik. Almost everyone is one eight something. Also, he seems to be too busy with snow mobile racing to participate in the cultural ceremonies of some of his ancestors. Suggestion: delete, even if we don't have any well-known Yup'ik then. The Yup'ik will get over that, I suppose. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a member of the Yup'tribe. It's not for us to decide upon the validity of Yup'ik identity. It's for Yup'iks to decide. And they've included him. We're just reporting the facts here on Wikipedia, not judging. There's also not much point in deciding if he's well-known enough--he's mentioned on Wikipedia, he has his own page, and that's enough notability.QuizzicalBee (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In the Todd Palin article ist says only that his grandmother is a member of the Curyung tribe. That's why I was wondering. I've looked at the link (no. 8) which rather looks like a letter to the editor of some newspaper. The author claims that Tood ist a member of the Curyung tribe. However, I think that is not a very reliable source. Do you know from other sources that Todd is a member of that tribe? (By the way, I haven't questioned if Todd is well-known or not. Obviously, he is a well known husband, I was just wondering if he was a well-known Yup'ik, too). --Bernardoni (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Palin referred to him as part Yu'pik in her recent speech.QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Yupik

Done. Shire Reeve (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup'ik or "Central" Alaskan Yup'ik?

The Central Alaskan Yup'ik people are not live in the Central Alaska (the center of Alaska is a part of Interior Alaska of Alaskan Athabaskans homeland) or Central, Alaska. They are live in the (south)western Alaska. In Alaska: The Yup'ik (with apostrophe) use for "Central Alaskan Yup'ik people", and the Yupik (no apostrophe) use for "Siberian Yupik people" of the St. Lawrence Island. --Kmoksy (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The most widely used in Alaska for this people is not "Central Alaskan Yup'ik", only used as "Yup'ik" (for all esu (ISO 639-3)-speaking natives and inhabitants of the Yukon-Kuskokwim, Norton Sound and Bristol Bay areas; and also "Cup'ik" for the Chevak villagers and "Cup'ig" for the Nunivak Islanders). --Kmoksy (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Central Alaskan Yup'ik people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2017

The following is a closed 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: Moved to Yup'ik  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Central Alaskan Yup'ik people → Yup'ik people – Central Alaskan Yup'ik is unfamiliar to any person who speaks English, except maybe for a few academics. The reason behind this titling is perhaps to distinguish between Yupik people (in general) and Yup'ik people specifically. Instead of using the highly pedantic name Central Alaskan Yup'ik, just change the name to Yup'ik people and add at the top "Not to be confused with:" Yupik people, referring to multiple Yupik-speaking peoples Naulagmi (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2017 (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.

Requested move 24 January 2019

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.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, consensus appears to lean towards the determination that the people are the primary topic of a WP:TWODABS situation, and therefore that the article should not be moved as proposed. bd2412 T 00:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup'ik → Yup'ik people – I propose to make Yup'ik a disambiguation page with entries for the people and the language, with an important "See also" entry to Yupik (disambiguation) (notice the absence of the apostrophe). Barring exceptional circumstances, there are no fundamental reasons to see an ethnic group as being the primary topic over the language, and defending a primary topic becomes especially difficult here in light of the pageviews: the daily average over last year was 89 for the people [3] vs. 66 for the language [4]. – Uanfala (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the previous RM: Naulagmi, Cuchullain, Amakuru. – Uanfala (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the existing Yupik (disambiguation) page can serve for both Yup'ik and Yupik. It already has three entries spelled "Yup'ik", including the two that would be on the proposed page, and splitting it serves no useful purpose. Whatever the outcome of this proposal we should have a redirect at Yup'ik (disambiguation). 62.165.227.102 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yupik (disambiguation) serves well the purpose of listing all the entities that a reader searching for "Yupik" might be looking. But a reader who explicitly includes the apostrophe in their search is looking for a narrower set of entities and redirecting them to a dab page where these entities are (potentially confusingly) interspersed with entities that are not referred to by that specific term, is not doing that reader much of a service. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I can see it being a disservice if the page were long, but it is not. The same "narrowing" argument can be argued for people searching terms with capital letters, hyphens, plurals and other WP:SMALLDETAILS.
For example the separate Cup'ik (disambiguation) mentions both the Central Alaskan Yup'ik people (with the apostrophe) and Yupik (without it), Cup'ig redirects to Nunivak Cup'ig language, yet the plural/demonym Cup'ik could target Chevak Cup’ik language (which Cup’ik does: yes, those are "curly" apostrophes) but actually targets Yup'ik as does Cupik, even though the article doesn't mention Cupik and the disambiguation page gives it as an alternative spelling for Central Alaskan Yup'ik people.
To make a two-entry DAB would seem to confuse things further. With more than two entries, it would overlap with the existing DABs for these cognates.Yup'ik#Naming has a nice table with the variants, and we don't seem always to be following them with the redirects, so that forms part of my confusion. 62.165.227.102 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not an issue of length, but of readers's ease of finding what they're looking for. What we have here is not quite the same situation as with other SMALLDETAILS dabs. The reason why singulars and plurals are normally combined on a single dab page is that they usually refer to the same set of entities. Variants with diacritics or capitals are often combined because these differences aren't normally relevant for how readers search (not many people distinguish caps in their searches, and very few English wikipedia users make use of diacritics). That's not the case here: unlike diacritics, the apostrophe is easily accessible on average English keyboards, and its presence is something that our readers are likely to notice. Of course, not all readers will have paid attention to it – and that's why Yupik (disambiguation) has entries for "Yup'ik" as well. But for a readers who searches specifically for "Yup'ik", I don't see how it can be confusing if they're presented with the two topics that are known by this name, and I really don't see how it can be an improvement to direct them to a page that also lists several articles that are not known by the name. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Because either it would duplicate the content at Yupik (disambiguation), or (as you proposed) split the disambiguation page which makes the Yup'ik articles harder to find for people typing "Yupik". It also obscures the relationship between these ethnic and language groups
It is already hard enough to see the meat for the potatoes, with Central Alaskan Yupik going to a different target from Central Alaskan Yup'ik, Cup'ik different from Cup’ik and so on. Some of the redirects' targets are Just Plain Wrong(tm) and I hope we can fix them during, or soon after, this discussion.
In this set of "Yupik" topics we also have Alutiiq, Alutiiq people redirecting to it, Alutiiq language and similarly Siberian Yupik, Siberian Yupik people redirecting to it and Siberian Yupik language, and so on. I'm inferring an intent to move all the "people" articles to have titles with "people" in them – something I would support. But if we continue to list all of the topics at the small disambiguation page covering the whole set, it seems needless to have tiny disambiguation pages at each of Siberian Yupik, Alutiiq, Yup'ik and Cup'ik. If we are not going to put them all on one page (obeying some sort of Law of Demeter), the "Yupik" disambiguation page becomes the root of a tree mimicking the structure of the ethnography itself, which somewhat begs the question. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to split the big dab page at Yupik (disambiguation). All I'm proposing is the creation of a separate one at Yup'ik. Yes, it will duplicate some of the content in the big dab, but I'm not sure I see a problem with that; this is inevitable when different terms have overlapping referents. – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was wrong to infer that you were suggesting a split.
If we have these WP:TWODABS, they can be linked in the "main" Yupik DAB, which would become more tree-structured. You have WP:NCLANG#Languages and their speakers on your side there, which says "If no primary topic exists, a disambiguation page containing links to both articles (and other ambiguous articles) should be created at the base name" (my emphasis). It doesn't say create a redirect, which is what I and others are supporting.
These mini-DABs have a marginal utility for readers typing exactly "Yup'ik", "Aluetiiq" etc., but there's a disutility in linking at the main DAB where readers can click through without getting any benefit. If they're redirects, they don't have to be linked at the DAB. (Of course, we can just WP:IAR and not link the mini-DABs at the main DAB.) Neither prevents editors giving us this kind of surprise where the people (currently at the base page name) are conflated with the language.
I think we've run as far as we can over this point. I think conensus is that there should be "people", "language" and "base name" pages, happily in line with WP:NCLANG, and that's the main thrust of your proposal. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Now I've had a closer look at the main dab page Yupik (disambiguation). It seems to be trying to list all Yupik subgroups and languages, but that's not the purpose of a dab page; it should only list articles whose topcs are known as "Yupik": and as far as I can see that's only Yupik (about the ethnic (super)group) and Yupik languages; at most, it could also have a link to the two Yup'ik topics. Unless any of the other groups could be referred to with the unqualified term "Yupik", they don't belong there. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've trimmed down that dab page, so if it stays in its current format I will have no objection to Yup'ik redirecting there. Another option is to redirect to the recently created dab page at Central Alaskan Yup'ik. – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation where the only other topic is the language that the people speak. The people receive the majority of page views[5] and for anyone confused, the language acan be found just as easily through a hat note as through a two-item dab page. Yupik (disambiguation) is sufficient as a dab page for these two topics.--Cúchullain t/c 18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think there are any reasonable fundamental grounds (that is, in terms of long-term significance) for seeing one of the topics as primary, and if we're going solely by the pageview stats, then a difference as small as this one – the ethnicity gets 57% of the total views vs. 43% for the language – falls far short of what is needed for a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The fundamental ground is that there wouldn’t be a language without the people. The people would also be there even if the language was dead, which is unfortunately the fate of many American languages. As far as page views, the people get 65% of the views so it passes that bar too. And again, the dab page wouldn’t solve any problem the hat note doesn’t.—Cúchullain t/c 02:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, but this isn't really the kind of reasoning that is relevant to deciding topic structure (how about a refresher of the last paragraph of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY?). The people don't get 65%, they get 57% (see the links in the nomination). – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I’m perfectly familiar with the guidelines, thanks, and this is the primary topic. In addition to having more long-term significance, the people also get 65% of the page views, as I said above.[6] This is also consistent with related articles.—Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The views I linked to in the nomination are the total views of each article for 2018. Your link doesn't show the total views for the articles, only the views for the exact titles excluding views coming from the redirects (which is especially relevant as one of the articles was recently renamed). Also, it's for a shorter time period (two months) so its results are less robust; and it's further skewed by including the present time when a portion of the views are not coming from readers but from editors attracted by the recent series of discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
If you’re going to be including topics that aren’t called just “Yup’ik” we shouldn’t be talking about creating a dab page that only includes those two things. We’d still be better off with the current dab structure.—Cúchullain t/c 14:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have been terribly unclear. Here are the stats I was referring to again: this is for the people and this is for the language. These are the total pageviews for each of the two articles. There aren't any other topics included. – Uanfala (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Over the past year, the pageview analysis shows 68% for the people vs the language articles.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuchullain (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think this seems to be going anywhere now. Again, this link shows the stats only for the exact title excluding the redirects, and this is a fraction of the views of each article. – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Page views suggest it's a wash between the two subjects, we shouldn't favour demographics over linguistics when it comes to significance, and if also allows easier access to the similar Yup'ik and Yupik concepts.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I could support redirecting Yup'ik to Yupik, but if it came to that, simply renaming the article Yup'ik people wouldn't be enough to disambiguate the article. It would need to be Yup'ik (Central Alaska) or some such.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, I think consistency overrides that here. It would be weird to have Yup'ik people but Central Alaskan Yup'ik language when these follow a pattern like German language, German people etc. etc. etc. (Yes, of course there are exceptions like Arabic people and Arabic language.) 94.21.204.175 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're quite right to mention that. It's always a bind to have two concurrent discussions, but really they are intertwined. We should be consistent in what character we use across this set of article titles. While it's under discussion, I'm just using the plain old apostrophe as a placeholder. I think it can be discussed separately, because we'd need redirects from titles with the plain old apostrophe anyway, per WP:TSC. What is certainly not acceptable is to have the variant forms redirect to different places, as Cup'ik and Cup’ik do. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It's also mentioned that some things should be titled "dialect" not "language". Since that doesn't affect the structure of this set of articles, I think that can stay moot. We can keep things as clear as possible by discussing the "representation of the apostrophe-like character" aspect (only) at the other discussion, and the structural aspect here. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. We could do with a redirect for the redlink Nunivak Cup'ig people, probably to Nunivak Island#People. It's used in Nunivak Cup'ig language. I'll copy this comment to its talk page. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This discussion appears to be ignoring a very important point. Several years ago, we had a poor man's version of the Great Renaming which affected dozens of articles covering a broad range of indigenous peoples. In that discussion, it was decided generally, with very few exceptions, that the trailing "people" in the title was extraneous. It might come across as forum shopping to have this big long discussion and not even pay a nod to that prior discussion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • As far as I've been able to glean from old talk page discussions, there was a campaign several years ago by one editor, who felt passionately that ethnic groups should always be the primary topics, and who started a large number of RMs, some of which were successful; these was apparently then used as a precedent to rename, rather hastily, a large number of articles about peoples of the Americas. I guess that's what you're referring to, and if I'm wrong it might help to provide a link to the discussion you have in mind. (And just for the avoidance of possible confusion, "people" is the preferred disambiguator (per WP:NCET) when the demonym doesn't have a distinct plural form, as is in this case). – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
RadioKAOS is correct. There have been a number of discussions on this over the years, involving many editors. One of the more in-depth centralized discussions was here, and there are dozens of individual RMs like these:[8][9][10] These have consistently found that "people" isn't needed if the article is the primary topic. The question here is whether the Yup'ik are the primary topic of the name. Between the people and the language, it appears they are (though of course some editors have a different interpretation. However, weighing in confusion with Yupik is a different story. As I said above, that confusion won't be resolved just by adding "people" behind the name - it's the Yup'ik part that's confusing.--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
But then there are also plenty of similar RMs that haven't passed, including, incidentally, one on the related Yupik peoples (why that articles is now at the primary title I don't know). And there's also WP:NCLANG (itself the result of long discussions) which reads: Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, it is most often the case that neither is the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding that I've had the article about the larger ethnic group moved back to Yupik peoples: this was largely a procedural matter as the editor who moved it to the primary title in 2017 appears to have missed the previous RM. However, given how hazy its result was, a fresh RM will probably not be out of place. – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
LOL, WP:NCLANG says that because you just changed it. There have been far, far more RMs that moved peoples to the base names than left them there, or went the other way [except where there was a primary topic question]. Not to mention the dozens if not hundreds of articles where the base name "Xxx" was left redirecting to "Xxx people", rendering the disambiguation pointless.--Cúchullain t/c 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It's OK for editors to disagree about interpretations or significance, but could we please at least get the facts straight? My only edit to this part of the guideline was last year, a revert of your attempt to remove this text. Yes, I did also condense the text, so maybe I should quote its previous wording, which came about as a result of this RfC from 2015: Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Therefore, barring exceptional circumstances, a pair of disambiguated article titles of the format "X language"/"X people" is generally recommended. A statement to the same effect had been in place since the creation of the guideline in 2011 and which only got challanged in the turmoil of 2014. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't make note of when you changed it. That said, the phrasing "it is most often the case that neither is the primary topic" doesn't reflect reality. In my experience on these articles, it's most often the case that the people are the primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think Cuchullain has it right here. Since it is a TWODABS situation we can be pretty liberal with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see reasoning at WP:2DABPRIMARY). If anyone goes to the trouble of typing in Yup'ik with the quote in the search box, they will be taken to this article, which is likely what they are looking for. The only other possibility is the language, and for that there is the hatnote link at the top of this article. A dab page only worsens the situation for everyone searching for this article (by taking them to the dab page instead of the article they are seeking), and doesn't improve it for those who are looking for the language (they are one click from the sought article either way). --В²C ☎ 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cúchullain and В²C. The proposed move won't help anybody. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose along the same lines as Cúchullain, 62.165.227.102, Born2cycle, et al. (in short: WP:TWODABS, and peoples articles have natural precedence over the corresponding languages articles). If the move were to proceed, I would still oppose the DAB, per 62.165.227.102 (in short: the Yupik DAB page is short and in no way confusing, and already has the relevant entries). However, a rather redundant DAB page that's kind of a "sub-DAB" of a longer, more inclusive DAB page isn't very "costly", so if the DAB proposal proceeds with support, I still oppose the move per Cúchullain's detailed rationale. I.e., my two oppositions are entirely severable and are for unrelated reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per previous. This is the primary topic and has been stable for years. Yuchitown (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown.
  • Support move to "Yupik Eskimos", which seems to be the most conventional designation for them, and is more easily understood by the average Joe anyway. Lovesaver (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When languages are named after their people, the people are primary and the language secondary. I support dabs when the ethno article is a stub and the language article is developed, but that's not the case here. — kwami (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but there should be only one DAB. The primary topic claims are marginal at best. There should be a single DAB at Yupik covering all topics that could go by that name or Yup'ik (and possibly other spellings, I see Yupic is already a redir). Andrewa (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2019 (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.

Notable people section again

The notable people section contains the following:

Larry Beck (1938–1994), a one-quarter Native Alaskan American sculptor. His father was American, his mother was Norwegian/Yup'ik from Alaska.

The link directs to a golfer from North Carolina, but that's not the important thing. Anyone looking for a Larry Beck from Alaska would not likely be looking for an obscure sculptor. Rather, they would be looking for Larry Allan Beck (1935–1990), known as "The Bard of Alaska", who became a major Alaskan celebrity throughout the 1970s and 1980s by channeling Robert Service. In our quest to be "the sum total of all human knowledge as far as the 21st century is concerned", we've overlooked a ton of folks like that. Just thought I'd throw this out in case anyone's concerned about misleading readers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Still a mess

So I left this conversation in late January at an impasse expecting the User:Uanfala and experts she has called on to sort this out.

Now I may be anonymous, but for thirty years I have been a contributor to the Usenet Oracle. Just this evening, a question came in to me as the Oracle, about how to pronounce an Alaskan native English word with a dot on the top of the G.

You are, I feel, doing no service to the English Wikipedia by making distinctions on which sodding apostrophe it is, MOS:APOS is quite clear on that it is a straight apostrophe. No stupid curly apostrophes of any kind. Either Yup'ik and Yupik are separete titles or they are not, if they are, there is no need to disambiguate Yup'ikl at Yupik. Once again it is just making a complete mess of what I was trying to straighten out in January, simply because someomne has up his bum that we have to somehow preserve an apostrophe because it is a glottal stop or phonetic lambasta or whatever in some native american language. It MAKES NO SENSE IN THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA TO DO THAT. I speak Hungarian daily, English daily in a cockney accent full of dropped aitches and glottal stops, I speak French fluently with rhotic Rs and so forth. We don't write the rhotic R differently from the english R, which in Southern English dialects (recessive R) is hardly even pronounced. We are getting up our own backsides with little jots and tittles when this is the English Wikipedda. let orthgraphers on Native American languages have their nown private shorthand, that is not how to convey a simple set of articles to an English speaking audience.

The redlink jots and tittles is printer's slang for the marks above the letters. Diacritical marks if you prefer. I am so incensed that in this masturbatory exercise you have forgotten that you are writing for a worldwide audience just so some academic can be pleased that Cupik is not the same as Cup'ik or Cup'ig. In some cases there are more names than people who speak them, which smacks of government money wasted, but that is not my problem. 94.21.253.113 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this edit was a good idea. Pairs of terms that differ in some small way (like capitalisation (for example UN and un) or the presence of special characters) are usually distinct, but nonetheless disambiguated at the same dab page. That's what's most commonly done. Apart from that, I'm not quite sure I follow, and I don't quite see how that fits with the discussion we had during the RM above. What changes to this page will in your opinion make it better? – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yup%27ik/Archive_1&oldid=1074293253"