This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I thought of this, but decided maybe it's unneeded; it would be better if there were a cat, subcat of the HBC cat guess, that was Category:Columbia District "instead" of Category:Oregon Country; really they're different but that's a longer discussion. Thing is this article should maybe be in Category:History of British Columbia because it's from an era before the British interests that became BC were Americanized, .e. the same way Fort Nisqually and Fort Vancouver are, or should be anyway...I won't bother right now, but it's a consideration someone else may choose to validate by nserting it. One factor concerning Colville and BC post-boundary is that the Colville Gold Rush drew a lot of the guys who had been on the Fraser and in the Cariboo and Big Bend and so on, back down across the line, whjch of course was very porous; as in notes on Talk:Columbia River about NPOV the hstory of the PacNW isback adn rforth and nterrelated....makes me wonder if there couldn't/shouldn't be a sub-sikiproject of the WA, BC, ID, OR, MT, AK, YT projects coordnating cross-border hstorical and geogrpahical and economic articles. Skookum1 ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that it was named after A. Colville, gbut FYI on Colville Indian Reservation they mention an American officer; I'll be back to check it's teh same Ft Colville under discussion; the other one struck me as wrong but I do wonder what it is and why it's there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I found this on Fts Colville, Okanagan, Similkameen and Shepherd/Pend'Oreille on the Royal BC Museum's Living Landscapes project; lots of great detail..... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Listed Lat/Lon coordinates are for modern building named Fort Colville, not for the original location. Since this page is about an historical place, the coordinates should reflect that historical place. Marion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.8.199 ( talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Fort Colvile. Only one editor opposed this, and didn't manage to convince anyone else that their argument had merit. Number 5 7 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Fort Colville → Fort Colvile (Hudson Bay Company) – Numerous wiki pages are linking to the Hudson Bay Company Fort Colvile, when they really want to link to a not-currently existing Fort Colville (US Army) page. I'm drafting a Fort Colville (US Army) page, but keep finding wrong links to the Hudson Bay page. Additionally, I am requesting a change in spelling for the HBC fort. It was spelled Colvile (one L ) in all HBC documents. Americans added the second L to their fort's name, the valley's name, and the district's name. Even reliable source documents on the HBC Fort Colvile page, like the map, show the correct spelling of Colvile. The HBC wiki page has the correct spelling of Colvile. More importantly, the actual archives for the Hudson Bay Company are at the Manitoba Archives, http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/, and they only use Colvile. Srichart4 ( talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Examples of the use of Fort Colvile:
I could go on, but HBC spelled Colvile with one L. I understand the argument to change the spelling and not add Hudson Bay Company after, but I live in the county where both forts are located. I'm involved with several museums, and all the museums' staff use US or HBC Fort Colville to clarify what we mean. Considering how many links I changed, I'm pretty sure if we don't make the distinction, authors of articles unfamiliar with the area will grab the wrong one. Srichart4 ( talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that Skookum1's completely oppose post above justifies the rejection of any move, which seems to be its gist. The fact that it's been discussed before is not a show-stopper, their opinion that those involved last time were better qualified than those involved this time is irrelevant, and the lack of a link to the previous discussion unhelpful.
But they do make some relevant points. More to follow, watch this space. Andrewa ( talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
First issue: One l or two? That is, they argue that this article should have the double l, on the basis that more recent sources use it, although most still do not, even a majority of online seem to sources use the single l. So the question is simply, if we had no need to disambiguate, would we use one l or two here? This could be argued on the basis of usage, consistency with other articles, etc., it's quite a big topic in itself.
Second issue: Is there a primary meaning of Fort Colville with the double l, and if so what is it? This is an independent question, it's possible for example for the primary meaning of Fort Colville to be the HBC one even if the preferred spelling for the article title is Fort Colvile.
That will do for a start I think. A link to the previous discussion that Skookum1 says took place long ago would probably help. No sense reinventing the wheel. Andrewa ( talk) 23:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the article history, you haven't made one single edit to it but here you are advancing a position against prior consensus and weaseling about calling guidelines policies, and trotting out a policy which does not apply specifically here in any way.
I'm in the article history, clearly part of the community of editors who worked on this, which you are not, and instead of listening to my explanation of why the title is how it's been all t his time, you say my"lack of a link is unhelpful".
What's unhelpful is people who don't know the subject matter, who don't have any respect for prior consensus, to demand a link from someone who did edit the article and does know the history and related geography in question.
I'm part of consensus, too.... saying it's "unhelpful" for me to not have taken the time to dig around for the old discussion, which I was clearly part of, is AGF; using WoT to justify not paying attention to what I have to say about it is just weaseling.
I'm starting to remember why I've tried to quit; so many inanities, so many evasions, so many people who love rules and love imposing them without proper context, or even reading all of those guidelines, getting stubborn and wasting a whole lot of time/energy on a title.....and who haven't lifted a finger to actually improve the article.
And being faced with personal derisions and imputations and policy-invocations instead of dealing with th issues raised....all to change a long-stable and quite sensitive title. Instruction creepery instead of logic and respect.
If you change the title of this article it will be yet another example of a 'bad call" made by people who dnon't really care about content but only about bad readings of guidelines as if they were Holy Writ. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The official name as far as USGS/GNIS goes is clearly spelled with two Ls
And yes, I hear the "we don't do official names" horsetwaddle all the time; instead I hear invocations from the sea of wiki-guidelines to justify the irrelevant and nonsensical. "We don't do official names" comes off as "we don't do reality, we do guidelines disconnected from reality" instead. In many cases, it is official names, and the known-to-obvious, that have finally won the case at hand. funny about that huh?
More similar cites to come; and quotes from TITLE and SOURCES which, given that you think my short paragraphs were "walls of text" to try and dismiss what I have to say, you don't seem to have read; or you'd know that qualitative readings of sources, rather than bulk-numberism and unfiltered results, have validity even though you're intent on pushing your own view....by invoking guidelines you haven't fully read and are using out of context (as you just did with the sole policy mentioned so far WP:consensus...as if I and others who have worked on this article don't belong to consensus and should be shut out by the guideline-happy. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
From WP:TITLE which is policy, there's:
More from SOURCES in a while....though quoting wikipedia's guidelines/policies to people who quote them without having read or been thoughtful about what they have to say seems a redundant business to engage in; the HBC Archives I'll try and get to. But if someone won't read what I have to say, while accusing me of going against consensus while having gone against long-standing consensus themselves, doesn't seem much point.
I'm logging off as I never meant to get swept back up into Wikipedia's inanities and circular self-referential games again, nor meant to incite those who want to attack or deride me instead of discussing the matters at hand. I'll check back here in a few days maybe......but this is all too reminiscent of the reasons I have left before...more than once...only to check in months later to discover more "business as usual", aka "b.s. as usual" Skookum1 ( talk) 07:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Once again, we see a close made by someone with no local historical or geographic knowledge making a bad call, and ignoring not just one editor but three; CBW did point out, and received support for - as had I also pointed out - that the US Army fort and the HBC one should be different articles. That the nom did not deign to that speaks to his single-mind on this, based on only the HBC's Manitoba Archives and their pre-1867 sources; dated references, in other words; modern histories of the region and many late 19th Century and throughout the 20th Century, use the double-L spelling (as does, again, the wiki article for the HBC governor whom the company's fort was named after).
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I thought of this, but decided maybe it's unneeded; it would be better if there were a cat, subcat of the HBC cat guess, that was Category:Columbia District "instead" of Category:Oregon Country; really they're different but that's a longer discussion. Thing is this article should maybe be in Category:History of British Columbia because it's from an era before the British interests that became BC were Americanized, .e. the same way Fort Nisqually and Fort Vancouver are, or should be anyway...I won't bother right now, but it's a consideration someone else may choose to validate by nserting it. One factor concerning Colville and BC post-boundary is that the Colville Gold Rush drew a lot of the guys who had been on the Fraser and in the Cariboo and Big Bend and so on, back down across the line, whjch of course was very porous; as in notes on Talk:Columbia River about NPOV the hstory of the PacNW isback adn rforth and nterrelated....makes me wonder if there couldn't/shouldn't be a sub-sikiproject of the WA, BC, ID, OR, MT, AK, YT projects coordnating cross-border hstorical and geogrpahical and economic articles. Skookum1 ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that it was named after A. Colville, gbut FYI on Colville Indian Reservation they mention an American officer; I'll be back to check it's teh same Ft Colville under discussion; the other one struck me as wrong but I do wonder what it is and why it's there.... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I found this on Fts Colville, Okanagan, Similkameen and Shepherd/Pend'Oreille on the Royal BC Museum's Living Landscapes project; lots of great detail..... Skookum1 ( talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Listed Lat/Lon coordinates are for modern building named Fort Colville, not for the original location. Since this page is about an historical place, the coordinates should reflect that historical place. Marion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.8.199 ( talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to Fort Colvile. Only one editor opposed this, and didn't manage to convince anyone else that their argument had merit. Number 5 7 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Fort Colville → Fort Colvile (Hudson Bay Company) – Numerous wiki pages are linking to the Hudson Bay Company Fort Colvile, when they really want to link to a not-currently existing Fort Colville (US Army) page. I'm drafting a Fort Colville (US Army) page, but keep finding wrong links to the Hudson Bay page. Additionally, I am requesting a change in spelling for the HBC fort. It was spelled Colvile (one L ) in all HBC documents. Americans added the second L to their fort's name, the valley's name, and the district's name. Even reliable source documents on the HBC Fort Colvile page, like the map, show the correct spelling of Colvile. The HBC wiki page has the correct spelling of Colvile. More importantly, the actual archives for the Hudson Bay Company are at the Manitoba Archives, http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/archives/hbca/, and they only use Colvile. Srichart4 ( talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Examples of the use of Fort Colvile:
I could go on, but HBC spelled Colvile with one L. I understand the argument to change the spelling and not add Hudson Bay Company after, but I live in the county where both forts are located. I'm involved with several museums, and all the museums' staff use US or HBC Fort Colville to clarify what we mean. Considering how many links I changed, I'm pretty sure if we don't make the distinction, authors of articles unfamiliar with the area will grab the wrong one. Srichart4 ( talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that Skookum1's completely oppose post above justifies the rejection of any move, which seems to be its gist. The fact that it's been discussed before is not a show-stopper, their opinion that those involved last time were better qualified than those involved this time is irrelevant, and the lack of a link to the previous discussion unhelpful.
But they do make some relevant points. More to follow, watch this space. Andrewa ( talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
First issue: One l or two? That is, they argue that this article should have the double l, on the basis that more recent sources use it, although most still do not, even a majority of online seem to sources use the single l. So the question is simply, if we had no need to disambiguate, would we use one l or two here? This could be argued on the basis of usage, consistency with other articles, etc., it's quite a big topic in itself.
Second issue: Is there a primary meaning of Fort Colville with the double l, and if so what is it? This is an independent question, it's possible for example for the primary meaning of Fort Colville to be the HBC one even if the preferred spelling for the article title is Fort Colvile.
That will do for a start I think. A link to the previous discussion that Skookum1 says took place long ago would probably help. No sense reinventing the wheel. Andrewa ( talk) 23:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the article history, you haven't made one single edit to it but here you are advancing a position against prior consensus and weaseling about calling guidelines policies, and trotting out a policy which does not apply specifically here in any way.
I'm in the article history, clearly part of the community of editors who worked on this, which you are not, and instead of listening to my explanation of why the title is how it's been all t his time, you say my"lack of a link is unhelpful".
What's unhelpful is people who don't know the subject matter, who don't have any respect for prior consensus, to demand a link from someone who did edit the article and does know the history and related geography in question.
I'm part of consensus, too.... saying it's "unhelpful" for me to not have taken the time to dig around for the old discussion, which I was clearly part of, is AGF; using WoT to justify not paying attention to what I have to say about it is just weaseling.
I'm starting to remember why I've tried to quit; so many inanities, so many evasions, so many people who love rules and love imposing them without proper context, or even reading all of those guidelines, getting stubborn and wasting a whole lot of time/energy on a title.....and who haven't lifted a finger to actually improve the article.
And being faced with personal derisions and imputations and policy-invocations instead of dealing with th issues raised....all to change a long-stable and quite sensitive title. Instruction creepery instead of logic and respect.
If you change the title of this article it will be yet another example of a 'bad call" made by people who dnon't really care about content but only about bad readings of guidelines as if they were Holy Writ. Skookum1 ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The official name as far as USGS/GNIS goes is clearly spelled with two Ls
And yes, I hear the "we don't do official names" horsetwaddle all the time; instead I hear invocations from the sea of wiki-guidelines to justify the irrelevant and nonsensical. "We don't do official names" comes off as "we don't do reality, we do guidelines disconnected from reality" instead. In many cases, it is official names, and the known-to-obvious, that have finally won the case at hand. funny about that huh?
More similar cites to come; and quotes from TITLE and SOURCES which, given that you think my short paragraphs were "walls of text" to try and dismiss what I have to say, you don't seem to have read; or you'd know that qualitative readings of sources, rather than bulk-numberism and unfiltered results, have validity even though you're intent on pushing your own view....by invoking guidelines you haven't fully read and are using out of context (as you just did with the sole policy mentioned so far WP:consensus...as if I and others who have worked on this article don't belong to consensus and should be shut out by the guideline-happy. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
From WP:TITLE which is policy, there's:
More from SOURCES in a while....though quoting wikipedia's guidelines/policies to people who quote them without having read or been thoughtful about what they have to say seems a redundant business to engage in; the HBC Archives I'll try and get to. But if someone won't read what I have to say, while accusing me of going against consensus while having gone against long-standing consensus themselves, doesn't seem much point.
I'm logging off as I never meant to get swept back up into Wikipedia's inanities and circular self-referential games again, nor meant to incite those who want to attack or deride me instead of discussing the matters at hand. I'll check back here in a few days maybe......but this is all too reminiscent of the reasons I have left before...more than once...only to check in months later to discover more "business as usual", aka "b.s. as usual" Skookum1 ( talk) 07:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Once again, we see a close made by someone with no local historical or geographic knowledge making a bad call, and ignoring not just one editor but three; CBW did point out, and received support for - as had I also pointed out - that the US Army fort and the HBC one should be different articles. That the nom did not deign to that speaks to his single-mind on this, based on only the HBC's Manitoba Archives and their pre-1867 sources; dated references, in other words; modern histories of the region and many late 19th Century and throughout the 20th Century, use the double-L spelling (as does, again, the wiki article for the HBC governor whom the company's fort was named after).