Talk:Hatzic

Canada: British Columbia / Geography / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

notes

this is an outline, various citations on the Mission Museum and Archives and District of Mission pages are available; an image already in Commons shows residential Hatzic from up at the Abbey so I'll add it next.

Noting this disambiguation project archive, the confusion as to which of the various Hatzic terms is the PRIMARYTOPIC could have been easily sorted out by simply asking me, or someone editing the Mission page; and +Prairie and +Slough and +Valley and +Lake/Island are all derivative terms simply in their syntax. When in doubt, the default stand-alone term should be defaulted to in all such cases, though instruction creep trends at Requested Moves have led to googlesearches and view-stats being used to decide between "singleton names" and double-barreled names...even though the latter are not eligible if the Primary Topic guideline and the DAB guideline are carefully followed. @JHunterJ:, @Canoe1967:. Might I suggest rather than keep geo-specific questions like this on the Disambiguation project noticeboard, they be asked at the regional WikiProjects where people likely to know the answer would know i.e. WikiProject British Columbia/Canada.

In this case the original reference was for either or both the root and the indigenous people; but a simple GoogleNews search i.e. of BC media, would have revealed the obvious: Hatzic as a community is the PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skookum1:, you might suggest that Canoe1967 ask questions anywhere you like. Questions asked at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation will be answered there, so no, you needn't ask me to re-ask Canoe1967's question at a regional WikiProject, and there's no need to ping me here based on his question or my answer there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you, and him/her, because you had had questions about what the primary topic is; and that discussion is archived so I could not answer that there; and again, I don't see why a region-specific dab question wasn't fielded by the relevant regional WikiProject (WP BC). It's obvious as pie from a google what the primary topic is of the one-word "Hatzic" form; Hatzic Prairie, Hatzic Lake, Hatzic Mountain are never referred to just as "Hatzic". The confusion over PT that's around lately, where secondary/derivative terms are put forward as if legitimate PT contenders, has been off-base since it began; other than the obscure Sto:lo subgroup for which there are very few citations, the only conceivable use of "Hatzic" as a single term is very plainly the community; a tiny bit of googling would have solved that little debate...or asking someone from BC...like me.

In other words, keeping a geo-discussion to WP:Disambiguation where only people who have that WikiProject's discussions watchlisted isn't very practical; but as I've learned, there is often a lot of disregard for people or readily-available sources in preference for infra-wikipedian "debates" on isolated talkpages and discussion boards. Next time you have a geo-confusion at WP:DAB, I suggest you actually go to the regional WP talkboards and ask someone.Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I corrected you then, and do so again, that I was responding to his/her questions where they were asked. I had no geo-confusion, nor any particular concern where he/she got the answers to the questions in my response. In other words, expecting respondents to WP:Disambiguation to act as discussion traffic cops isn't very practical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]