Talk:Fort Severn First Nation

message: I'm curious what the number in the name means. I'm guessing it's some sort of reserve labelling system. Anyone? It might be good to even put an explanation somewhere an article if there isn't one already. -- PullUpYourSocks 03:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to keep it, just for the sake of consistancy. After all, it does mention "making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I take that as meaning, if I am going to list indian reserves off of StatsCanada, I want it to be "easy and second nature". I admit, that phrase can be taken many ways. However, it would be nice to keep consistent. I'm not sure, but there might even be a Fort Severn community outside the reserve that may belong at Fort Severn, Ontario, but that is just speculation. --  Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The Fort Severn First Nations website (listed in the external links) traces the history of the community to the original Fort Severn founded in 1680. So I really think the proper name in the case of this article is just "Fort Severn".  Besides, who other than statisticians would refer to their community as "Fort Severn 89"?  Anyways, since I can't seem to convince you :-) I'll leave this be until someone else comes along and "breaks the tie" on this issue.  Samw 03:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps 2 articles are warrented. One for the indian reserve at Fort Severn 89, Ontario, and the other on the historical settlement at Fort Severn, Ontario or at Fort Severn, Ontario (settlement). --  Earl Andrew - talk 04:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I believe that Fort Severn is completely contained with the reserve but if that isn't the case, then expansion can be done within this article or a separate article can be disambiguated for the reserve. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Numbers aren't just used by statscan, I have seen it on road maps, and other government documents.  The custom for place names is to use what stascan calls them, especially for more obscure places like indian reserves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: While I agreee the number is valid for most Indian reserves, Fort Severn is different; it has historical significance and my vote is to just use "Fort Severn".  Samw 03:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps two articles are needed? One for the historic settlement, and another for the current legal indian reserve. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Fort Severn is completely contained within the reserve but if that isn't the case, then expansion can be done within this article or a separate article can be disambiguated for the reserve. (Fort Severn First Nation, Fort Severn Indian Reserve, or Fort Severn (reserve). ) DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I second Samw's vote. Google for "Fort Severn": 38,400. Google for "Fort Severn 89": 220, of which 2/3 are gov't sites and 1/3 are wikipedia sites/mirrors. Canada Post uses "Fort Severn". Even many (most?  vs. ) INAC pages use "Fort Severn" (e.g., ). Fort Severn First Nation of course doesn't use 89, Chiefs of Ontario doesn't use 89, Environment Canada uses "Fort Severn", etc. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: And, I don't agree the number is valid for article titles anymore than I would agree to put SINs or Indian Registration numbers after people's names. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  89?