Talk:Muckleshoot

	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.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Merger[edit]

I feel that the article Muckleshoot Indian Casino should be merged with Muckleshoot as their is very little information pertaining to the casino and therefore, I do not feel that it is substantial enough to stand alone. T. White 09:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a standard within the Indigenous peoples of North America WikiProject which calls for separate articles for government, ethno/people/culture, language and major sub-institutions; the government article here would be Muckelshoot Tribe or Muckleshoot Nation, whatever that government prefers, and the casino would be a mention there. This page should be for ethnographic and cultural and historical materials.Skookum1 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. 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: Move. Clear consensus that "people" is unnecessary disambiguation, as there are no other ambiguous articles. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muckleshoot people → Muckleshoot – target is redirect to current title created/moved by Kwami on June 8 2010 contrary to WP:UNDAB. Skookum1 (talk) 06:59, 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) 12:30, 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 02:36, 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). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Muckleshoot is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To add to article[edit]

To add to article: what the word "Muckleshoot" means. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not refer to Muckleshoot in historic terms[edit]

The ancestors should be referred to as the Coastal Salish peoples - or the tribes as they were known. The Muckleshoot did not exist as a separate people before the late 19th or early 20th century century, so I think it is confusing to refer to them in the past as if they did. They should be identified when they became known under their name, not before.Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Muckleshoot Resvn" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Muckleshoot Resvn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 3#Muckleshoot Resvn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sounder Bruce 21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]