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 Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
Shouldn't this be called "Indian agent (United States)"? Wikipedia is an international project. Why should the default be the United States? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.23.193.251 (
talk)
23:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leaning support: I suppose the suggestion is that "Indian agent" could refer to an agent of India or an agent who is an Indian person. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Strikethrough above. I thought this was about India, but if it's just a question of Canada and the United States, it's just a
WP:TWODABS with a primary topic or would be solved by a merge. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
06:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Themightyquill: Can you please provide a more clear explanation of the rationale for this RM proposal? Is it for disambiguation? If so, for what other topics discussed on Wikipedia? —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
BarrelProof: Sorry for not explaining more in the nomination. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so, based on my readings of {{globalize}} (and concerns raised at
Geographical bias on Wikipedia), it seemed strange to me that
Indian Agent would deal exclusively with Indian Agents in the United States, while Indian Agents in Canada would be at
Indian Agent (Canada). @
Station1: Given that anyone searching for Indian agents (in either country or without knowledge that they existed in Canada) would first end up at
Indian agent, it shouldn't be a surprise that that article would get a large majority of the hits. Several articles referencing Canadian issues (
British Indian Department,
Pass system (Canadian history),
List of mayors of Markham, Ontario,
North-West Rebellion, and
Kwantlen First Nation) are also (accidentally) directing people to
Indian agent. Oddly,
Indian agents redirects to the Canadian article. Admittedly, there are more direct links to the American article as well, but given the relative size of the populations, that's quite normal - there were more Indian agents in the United States numerically, though not necessarily proportionally. That's certainly not evidence of American Indian agents being the
primary topic with Canadian Indian agents as secondary. Merging the two would make sense, or if it makes more sense to split them, they should both be disambiguated, no? Forgive me if I've misunderstood naming policy. --
Themightyquill (
talk)
22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Honestly, when I made this nomination, I had zero memory of ever editing this article before, but looking back now, I was surprised to see that I actually created
Indian agent back in 2007, just setting it up as a redirect to Indian Agent which, at that point, referred exclusively to Indian agents in Canada. Only later was that page moved to
Indian agent (Canada) to acknowledge they existed elsewhere. Later still,
Indian agent was established as an article, referring only to American Indian agents. I'm not trying to claim ownership or anything--my only contribution in 15 years was creating a single redirect--but that sequence of renaming hardly seems right. --
Themightyquill (
talk)
22:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Your points are entirely reasonable. To answer a couple: It's true that pageviews are inflated somewhat by the U.S. being at the base name, but even assuming every reader looking for the Canadian article mistakenly landed first on
Indian agent, that would still mean over 80% of readers want the U.S. article (as opposed to 90%). It's also true that wikilinks misdirected to a dab page are more likely to be fixed than those directed to a wrong article, but the flip side is that those readers searching for "Indian agent" who want info about the U.S. agents (a significant majority) are inconvenienced by being forced through a dab page, while the minority looking for Canadian info are no better off clicking through a dab page than clicking through a hatnote at the top of the U.S. article. As mentioned, all this could also be solved by a merger, and I don't think the articles are too long for that, at least not yet.
Station1 (
talk)
05:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
Shouldn't this be called "Indian agent (United States)"? Wikipedia is an international project. Why should the default be the United States? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.23.193.251 (
talk)
23:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)reply
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leaning support: I suppose the suggestion is that "Indian agent" could refer to an agent of India or an agent who is an Indian person. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
17:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Strikethrough above. I thought this was about India, but if it's just a question of Canada and the United States, it's just a
WP:TWODABS with a primary topic or would be solved by a merge. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
06:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Themightyquill: Can you please provide a more clear explanation of the rationale for this RM proposal? Is it for disambiguation? If so, for what other topics discussed on Wikipedia? —
BarrelProof (
talk)
05:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
BarrelProof: Sorry for not explaining more in the nomination. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so, based on my readings of {{globalize}} (and concerns raised at
Geographical bias on Wikipedia), it seemed strange to me that
Indian Agent would deal exclusively with Indian Agents in the United States, while Indian Agents in Canada would be at
Indian Agent (Canada). @
Station1: Given that anyone searching for Indian agents (in either country or without knowledge that they existed in Canada) would first end up at
Indian agent, it shouldn't be a surprise that that article would get a large majority of the hits. Several articles referencing Canadian issues (
British Indian Department,
Pass system (Canadian history),
List of mayors of Markham, Ontario,
North-West Rebellion, and
Kwantlen First Nation) are also (accidentally) directing people to
Indian agent. Oddly,
Indian agents redirects to the Canadian article. Admittedly, there are more direct links to the American article as well, but given the relative size of the populations, that's quite normal - there were more Indian agents in the United States numerically, though not necessarily proportionally. That's certainly not evidence of American Indian agents being the
primary topic with Canadian Indian agents as secondary. Merging the two would make sense, or if it makes more sense to split them, they should both be disambiguated, no? Forgive me if I've misunderstood naming policy. --
Themightyquill (
talk)
22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Honestly, when I made this nomination, I had zero memory of ever editing this article before, but looking back now, I was surprised to see that I actually created
Indian agent back in 2007, just setting it up as a redirect to Indian Agent which, at that point, referred exclusively to Indian agents in Canada. Only later was that page moved to
Indian agent (Canada) to acknowledge they existed elsewhere. Later still,
Indian agent was established as an article, referring only to American Indian agents. I'm not trying to claim ownership or anything--my only contribution in 15 years was creating a single redirect--but that sequence of renaming hardly seems right. --
Themightyquill (
talk)
22:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Your points are entirely reasonable. To answer a couple: It's true that pageviews are inflated somewhat by the U.S. being at the base name, but even assuming every reader looking for the Canadian article mistakenly landed first on
Indian agent, that would still mean over 80% of readers want the U.S. article (as opposed to 90%). It's also true that wikilinks misdirected to a dab page are more likely to be fixed than those directed to a wrong article, but the flip side is that those readers searching for "Indian agent" who want info about the U.S. agents (a significant majority) are inconvenienced by being forced through a dab page, while the minority looking for Canadian info are no better off clicking through a dab page than clicking through a hatnote at the top of the U.S. article. As mentioned, all this could also be solved by a merger, and I don't think the articles are too long for that, at least not yet.
Station1 (
talk)
05:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.