Talk:Siletz

	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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Stub	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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

External link

The second external link does not work. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on the title of the article in Google and found the new link really quickly. If you find a broken link, it's OK to go ahead and fix it yourself! Often the link has just been moved. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population in infobox

Isn't it a bit misleading to list the population in the infobox as the vague "fewer than" the enrolled population of the confederated tribes that happen to share the same name? The population section is much clearer. Can we make this clearer in the infobox or leave it out completely? Valfontis (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most accurate number available. The tribe isn't extinct; they are just widely intermarried with other tribes. If you have another source of population figures, feel free to change it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I wasn't implying the tribe was extinct. I don't have a better source (I can't find any population figures in Wilkinson), but as the text explains, the number was as low as 100, and then they stopped counting. I think this should be noted in the infobox, as well as the in the text, that's all. People might not understand the intermarrying thing. Valfontis (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siletz people → Siletz – title is dab page started as such, if sloppy, on Sep 25 2003 by 66.109.195.133 Siletz (tribe) title incorrectly moved to "Confederated Tribes of Siletz" by Decumanus on Jun 30 2004 who then reconsidered and wrote it as a "people" article which was then moved to current title by Uysvdi on Jan 3 2011, citing " in keeping with other indigenous ethnic groups' articles", though that was contrary to WP:UNDAB and also WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The Siletz dab page contains nothing that could be construed as a more PRIMARYTOPIC than the people (the city has only a population of 1,212) and should become the people-article title. Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[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) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[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. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Siletz. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]