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.
The character § renders on my system as a "section" symbol. Is it meant to look that way, or have I not got a suitable font installed? And what alphabet is it from? Maproom (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've commented on the unexplained appearance of a non-English alphabetic character in Main Page's Did you know section, where this article has featured. If the site has an accepted Anglicised name (as suggested in the lede), then, for clarity and better understanding, this should be used for the article's title, with the usual transcription in the first sentence (see, for example, Moscow). Bazza (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it a non-English alphabetic character? Maybe it's not in any alphabet. I cannot find any information about this. The article says that "§ehdacho" is in the Slavey language, but that article says that "The language is written using Canadian Aboriginal syllabics or the Latin script", and I cannot find "§" in either alphabet. Is it possible that the name of this article is misspelled, or that we are victims of some prank? --Keeves (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph sign seems odd to me too. I've taken the question to WP:RDL. --Theurgist (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you that we are not "victims of some prank". The "§" symbol is often used by both federal and territorial authorities. Whether the current article title spelling is the best one to use is a good discussion to have, but perhaps we could all assume that neither carelessness nor malice are behind the current spelling. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Skeezix1000: Apologies, I had failed to properly check the sources cited before taking the question to the RDL. I had seen the glottal stop spelt as ʔ, ?, 7, but never §. --Theurgist (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Apologies on my side, actually. The comment wasn't directed to you, but I (confusingly) placed it immediately under your previous comment. Raising the comment at RDL was an excellent suggestion, because even the government documents are inconsistent, and civil servants are not necessary the experts. If there is a better name for the article, I am all in favour of having that discussion and getting wider input - I was just a little taken aback by the earlier suggestion that "§" was possibly the work of a Wikipedia contributor. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Yes, but the sources mentioned above in the other discussion use the § symbol. And some of the other government sources use other spellings without the ʔ, suggesting it isn't necessarily correct and/or the most common either. Maybe it's the better spelling, but I would want more evidence than the one map as to what spelling is the correct, commonly-used English-language transliteration. And wouldn't we want to see if we get some assistance at the WP:RDL query before we start picking a name?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If the § is a typographical shortcut in sources that can't type ʔ and is thought of as such, then move the article. Wikipedia does not have such limitations. — AjaxSmack 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think it's a typographical shortcut? I wouldn't have thought that the sources that use it would have resorted to shortcuts or would have any greater limitations than Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous examples of such limitations (see, e.g., Marshallese language: Display issues). I don't have any evidence of such in this case which is why I qualified my comment and didn't overtly support the move. — AjaxSmack 06:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's pretty evidently not the case here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose(new position set out below) The proposed move is well intended, but I believe it is premature. It seems to be based on one map/website, without regard to other sources. Official sources seem to use various spellings for the site, including Sahoyúé-§ehdacho, Saoyú-?ehdacho, Sahoyúé-ʔehdacho, Saoyú-Æehdacho and Sahoyue-Edacho (interesting to note that the spelling question is not limited to the glottal stop). The Canadian Register of Historic Places incredibly uses both Saoyú-?ehdacho and Sahoyúé-§ehdacho (as does Parks Canada's Designations of National Historic Signifigance, which further identifies Sahoyúé-Edacho as the "designation name"), while the most recent federal press release cited in the article refers to Saoyú-Æehdacho. Given the various names in play, my inclination would be use a name using solely Roman characters (such as Saoyú-Æehdacho or Sahoyue-Edacho), but I don't know enough about transliteration of the Slavey language to be able to take an educated position. Even though the WP:RDL query did not generate any input, I think we should put the move nomination in abeyance, or close it without consensus, and in the meantime seek a better understanding of the issue (otherwise, any name chosen now will be, at best, an uninformed guess). I'll start making inquiries, with the first step being to leave a note for User:CambridgeBayWeather, who seems to be the Wikipedian who knows more about Canada's north than anyone else. He might not know the answer, but he may have suggestions as to how to find the answer. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed move will be as unhelpful as the article's current title. I agree with the comment by Skeezix1000 above that it should be given a name which uses Roman characters only. This is the English language Wikipedia, and using characters which are not recognisably derived from the English alphabet is not helpful. Readers will have no idea what the current or proposed spelling means, as is shown further up this talk page. My own preference would be the simplest of those mentioned: Sahoyue-Edacho which, observant readers will have noticed, is already a redirect to this article. Alternative spellings, including those in non-Roman alphabets, should be included in the lede, as is normal practice. Bazza (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That was my thinking as well, although I think I am inclined to change that view in light of CambridgeBayWeather's post below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That's extremely helpful. That footnote in the Canada Gazette seems to indicate that the site has had 4 different official names since being designated as a National Historic Site (which would explain the confusion), and the current, officially agreed-upon name (as of Oct 2010) is Saoyú-ʔehdacho. If I am reading that correctly, then I would be inclined to support that name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Support, but move to Saoyú-ʔehdacho based on the information provided by CBW, which indicates that the official name has changed and is now Saoyú-ʔehdacho. I would support using strictly Roman characters, as suggested above, but only where there was no official consensus on an official name (which is now clearly not the case here). There is no clear WP:COMMONNAME alternative (usage is mixed), so I support using what is now the official name. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
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.