This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pattullo Bridge replacement →? – The Government of British Columbia officially unveiled the official Indigenous name "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" and the official English name "Riverview Bridge" at a press conference. The current title no longer reflects the established official naming. Admin assistance is required due to the blacklist. Efuture2 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The Government of British Columbia officially unveiled the new bridge’s name at a press conference, announcing Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge as the official Indigenous name and Riverview Bridge as the official English name. Both names were presented together as the formal designations for the structure replacing the Pattullo Bridge.
Because the Indigenous name contains glottal marks and combining characters, the title appears to be blocked by the local/global title blacklist. Administrative assistance is therefore required to complete any move.
Proposal:
Move the page from Pattullo Bridge replacement to Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge, with Riverview Bridge included as the English equivalent in the lead section, consistent with naming conventions for BC infrastructure with dual official names.
Rationale:
The Government of BC has formally named the structure in both languages.
Multiple reliable sources (press conference, media coverage) confirm the official naming.
Wikipedia guidelines for geographic names and public infrastructure recommend using the official name when it is clearly established.
Admin assistance is required due to the title blacklist entry.
I welcome feedback from editors and administrative review to complete the move. Efuture2 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
comment Why not use both names, where the infobox lists them both and there's a redirect from one to the other? - Denimadept (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I tried to move the page to the Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge but gives a error message “You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:
The page "Pattullo Bridge replacement" cannot be moved to "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" because the title "Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you believe that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.”
The Indigenous name contains glottal marks that trigger the title blacklist Efuture2 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I was able to move it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: While you've already moved the article, I believe the title should've remained in the common English form until reliable sources and media consistently adopt one name over the other and consensus has been reached here.
WP:USEENGLISH suggests that English Wikipedia uses names that are accessible to English readers. Glottal marks and schwa vowel present barriers as most users cannot easily type "stal̕əw̓asəm" and searchability is reduced. Since the bridge is not yet open, we do not know how the general public and media will refer to it in the future, and WP:COMMONNAME suggest that titles reflect the name most frequently used in reliable sources.
I do believe the Indigenous name should be prominently included in the article text and infobox, but it is WP:TOOSOON to determine the appropriate article title, especially as the government has provided both Indigenous and anglicized forms (stal̕əw̓asəm and Riverview Bridge). Futongrab (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with this, but I will add that the official policy under WP:USEENGLISH states that for topics with "too few sources in English to constitute an established usage" to use "the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about", which I would argue means the title ought to be the official English name, Riverview Bridge. ~2025-39808-76 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment. It seems like the consensus in the public (disagreement with a lot) and local media is that the official name is Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge with the English Name Riverview Bridge being secondary but not used completely in news publications. Efuture2 (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment I don't agree that there is any consensus now; The only articles in the local media relating to the new bridge are about the indigenous name which naturally are going to focus on it rather than the English name. I would personally still lean towards either WP:USEENGLISH or WP:TOOSOON for now. ~2025-39808-76 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Riverview is not the anglicized name. It's the translated name. Anglicized means 'made English in form or character' meaning the anglicized of stal̕əw̓asəm is something like Staluwasum. Anglicized is the same word and pronunciation just spelled in Standard English. Example with sc̓əwaθən, Tsawwassen, and Land Facing Sea/Oceanfront being the equivalent of stal̕əw̓asəm, Staluwasum and Riverview, respectively. The 2nd one is the anglicized and the last one is the Translated. The BC government and news articles all refers it to translated and never anglicized. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I believe "translated" or "anglicised" is arguing semantics. It's not hard to find counterexamples to this argument. The big granite mountain in Squamish is called Siy̓ám̓ Smánit in the Squamish language which probably would anglicize to something like Siyahm Smahneet, but the Wikipedia title is Stawamus Chief which is the translation.
At the end of the day WP:USEENGLISH or WP:COMMONNAME. According to WP:CRITERIA a good article has 5 qualities: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. The English translated name satisfies all these qualities as quite interestingly there appears to be no other bridge in the world named "Riverview bridge" which is actually pretty surprising, but the Halkomelem name only really satisfies precision and concision and perhaps one day recognizability. ~2025-40006-87 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I believe "translated" or "anglicised" is arguing semantics.
It's not semantics it has meaning and is 100% relevant. Your whole premise and argument relies on conflating the two.
to something like Siyahm Smahneet, but the Wikipedia title is Stawamus Chief which is the translation.
Again with the conflation. Stawamus is a First Names anglized word of Stʼa7mes. It says that in the article. Again proving my point. I want to you to please stop using the word translation for anglicized. Thank you. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment - how about a hybrid name with both in the titles with redirects all around. It will capture search traffic and reflect that the plaque on the bridge will be covering the official name not necessarily the anglicized name -- Tawker (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Just further to that from doing more research, looking at he BC Gov release which states clearly "Road signage will include both the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name and English translation." - from a searchable lens I believe a hit for either name will return the article. Tawker (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Even more research on this, states " While an English translation of the bridge name is provided, learning and using the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name is encouraged" - it's making it clear that the official name is Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge Tawker (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
stal̕əw̓asəm (uncapitalized as is convention) is certainly an, if not the, official name, however this is English Wikipedia and other bridges with official non-English names use the official English name if it is available for article titles. For examples:
Both Zhangjinggao Yangtze and Bosphorus Bridge are the anglicized names going against what you are trying to argue for. Those are the Chinese and Turkish names just spelled using Standard English. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
That's incorrect, Yangtze River is the translation of 长江大桥 which would be anglicized as changjiang, and Bosphorus is the translation of Boğaziçi which would be anglicised as, well, Boğaziçi. At the end of the day, these are names used in English languages sources so they are the names that are used. WP:COMMONNAME~2025-40006-87 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
What does Yangtze mean in English or Bosphorus? They don't mean anything they are anglicized. The anglicize attempts, whether they are good ones or not is not up to us. You even said in another post to me there's no standard anglicized process which Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) says to use the most popular if there's one and if not use the standard Manual of Style. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment - It's interesting to me that there's even a discussion to not use the First Nation name. Especially when sports articles are littered with non English titles. David Pastrňák, Lukáš Krpálek, and Jakub Zbořil are some I quickly found. We also don't have Chilliwack as the translation of Upstream, BC, we use Chilliwack which is the anglicized version. It's clear that by looking at List of First Nations governments in British Columbia that wikipedia mainly uses the anglicized (if known, which it is in most cases) and if not uses the the first nation word as a whole. Given current Wikipedia convention for First Nation names in BC as a whole, my opinion is it should be stal̕əw̓asəm or the anglicized version if that's published, but not Riverview. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you familiar with BC place names? Chilliwack is the official English name and the name exclusively used in media sources. You will never find a street sign or new article which mentions "Upstream, BC" because that is a name which does not exist. However, stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge and Riverview Bridge as of December 12, 2025 are both currently positioned as equals on signage relating to the bridge, see:
Unfortunately for English Wikipedia, there is currently a convention in government and media to officially not anglicise new indigenous language place names, particularly Halkomelem names, which makes using an exact anglicised version tricky to decide upon as we will likely never see one in print.
For a similar discussion on effectively the same topic, see:
I am very familiar with BC names and it's very rude and condescending to even start your comment like that. Did you take a look at List of First Nations governments in British Columbia? You are confusing English name and Anglicized name. Chilliwack is the Anglicized name it's not translated. That's my point. English Name refers to the translated. Chilliwack has no meaning in English. That's my whole point. I don't know how you can still be confusing anglicized and English names.
Unfortunately for English Wikipedia, there is currently a convention in government and media to officially not anglicise new indigenous language place names, particularly Halkomelem names, which makes using an exact anglicised version tricky to decide upon as we will likely never see one in print.
Yes your own link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) says that we should what is the most commonly in English Sources regardless what that is. So if all the sources are using stal̕əw̓asəm either alone or with Riverview, but never Riverview alone, it should be at stal̕əw̓asəm.
However, stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge and Riverview Bridge as of December 12, 2025 are both currently positioned as equals on signage relating to the bridge.
One is first correct? So saying they are equal is not true and just your own view. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Given fully reading WP:USEENGLISH/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) which clearly says 'the name of the subject that is most common in the English language'. Which mean what is the name used in common English sources. Given that, I did some search a no reliable sources refer to it as the Riverview Bridge on it's own. However, 2 (The Vancouver Sun and Blackpress refer it as just Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge and only mentions Riverview as the tranlation, but not the name. Others (CBC, Global, CTV, CITY) all refer to both with Stal̕əw̓asəm being the main name. BC Gov also says Stal̕əw̓asəm is the main name. . Given all that (and thinking it over), it's clear to me that it should be Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge and if an anglicized version or even Riverview become the more widely used one then we should move it at that time. But given the current reliable sources clearly preferring Stal̕əw̓asəm. That's what we should use. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I believe this is still a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. The articles you cite are explicitly about the naming ceremony, I think it is prudent to wait until sufficient secondary sources begin referring to the bridge outside of this context. Otherwise šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm Street would be the article and not Musqueamview Street as all of the early articles were about the rename to šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm without much reference to the English translation name Musqueamview.
For future reference, the official Halkomelem name is stal̕əw̓asəm, as Downriver Halkomelem does not use cased Latin characters. ~2025-40006-87 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
If it's too soon. Then it's too soon for Riverview too. That's a policy has nothing to do with the current scenario right now. You need to make a case why it should be Riverview when wikipedia follows what reliable sources and they are all using stal̕əw̓asəm (I copied pasted from the Blackpress article, so please save your gotchas. You can clearly see that's only time I used the capital letter). None are ever referring to it as Riverview on it's own but we have sources using stal̕əw̓asəm without calling it or saying it's Riverview Bridge. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources) is clear that the title should be what English sources are using.
On your point to about Musqueamview Street. The City of Vancouver provides https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/musqueamview-st.aspx anglicized version of the name. I'm very open and has said if we have an official anglicized version that should be the tile. But we do not. Therefore, it should follow what English sources are using (which is stal̕əw̓asəm). We have many articles that do that when the anglicized isn't known. Stó꞉lō Tribal Council, Mamalilikulla-QweʼQwaʼSotʼEm_Band (this is an interesting one because one is anglicized and the other is not in the same title), Sq'éwlets First Nation. This is just a small number in my back pocket. Lastly, you can't site the discussion in Musqueamview Street as something that applies here. 1) That discussion didn't reach consensus. It also was improperly withdrawn. You can't withdraw a requested move if there's a discussion. Only if there's no discussion yet can you do that. 2) Wikipedia is not a court of law. Once precedent is achieved we don't just follow it blindly. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. You have to make your point on why and right now you and the other IP user who are saying the same thing without providing arguments are backed by wikipedia policy even if you cite it (makes me very suspicious ie I think you and the IP are the same person). If your IP changed and that's the case please disclose that. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm adding that you are again trying to confuse and conflate translation and anglicized with the Musqueamview. I have asked nicely for you to please stop but you continue. I will repeat myself for what feels like the 10th time. Riverview is not the anglicized. It's the translation. Musqueamview is the anglicized of šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm. It is not the translation. Even if the City of Vancouver site refers to it as translated. Anglicisation is the process of taking a non English word and making it English. Since Musqueam is already anglicized they just added an English suffix. But at it's core it's still anglicized. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Another point on Musqueamview move discussion. There was one oppose and that was because sources were using Musqueamview. So again supports my view that we should be following what the current English sources are using.--Created Account For Old UI (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: The bridge isn't completed yet, so I don't see any issue with waiting a few more months until a WP:COMMONNAME is more clearly established. If we rush to conclusions now, we might just end up renaming it again. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing traffic reports, or even better, some non-Canadian sources to help settle on a widely accepted name. Futochu (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
It opens to traffic in 11 days. Why are we waiting? This is a name? If a sports they named themselves stal̕əw̓asəm (and it their own words says "While an English translation of the bridge name is provided, learning and using the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name is encouraged". and all articles use that name. Would we wait? No we would not. We have every Canadian major news outlet using it and not Riverview (except some as a footnote and never alone). What are we waiting for? It makes no sense to keep as Patullo Bridge Replacement. That's 100% not the used name. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. If this was a sports team and they named themselves something would we be having this conversation. I just posted 10 different reliable sources all using stal̕əw̓asəm as the main name. Can you find one article that makes use of Riverview as the main subject/main. Wikipedia:There is no deadline clearly says Consensus can change. The consensus right now is stal̕əw̓asəm.
You're framing this has there's no consensus in reliable sources when there is. Every single one uses stal̕əw̓asəm.
Please show me the debate in usage in reliable sources. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles is very clear. "Note that Wikipedia's Use English guideline does not mean that the words in an article title must invariably be in English; it means that the title needs to be what an English speaker would most likely recognize as the usual name of the subject in actual usage." Thereby rebuking the repeated notion that the name has to be in English. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Here is all the articles from major Canadian news sources using saying the name is stal̕əw̓asəm.
Pattullo Bridge renamed Stal̕əw̓asəm, replacement span to open soon
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'Stal̕əw̓asəm,' new span set to open soon
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'stal̕əw̓asəm,' set to open soon
B.C.’s new Pattullo Bridge receives First Nations name — stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
Pattullo Bridge replacement given First Nation name stal̕əw̓asəm
Pattullo replacement connecting Surrey and New Westminster named stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
This is the official new name in a First Nations language for the new Pattullo Bridge
WATCH: Pattullo replacement named stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'stal̕əw̓asəm,' set to open soon
Pattullo Bridge replacement gets new name, date for phased opening
Can someone please find me one source that make Riverview the main subject of the name. All this 'let's wait' is framing this as a debate with reliable sources. When it's clearly not. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
We have two new news articles (different publications) about the upcoming closures to the old Pattullo Bridge. Both refer to the bridge as stal̕əw̓asəm bridge. Another one talking about the safety of cyclists also uses it. Note: this is the Student Newspaper for Langara College. None refers to it as Riverview. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment - It's gotten to the point that I'm very suspicious of sockpuppetry. We have IP users AND accounts that haven't been active in a long time (but are old) writing in the same way. They are all starting their replies with Comment which isn't something I've seen at wikipedia. I took a stroll around Wikipedia:Requested moves and no other discussions have that but here we have many IP users and users doing it. It's either that or this discussion is being brigaded. I'm not 100% sure but it's very suspicious. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
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.
Name Used in Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Give the recent edits I want keep track of what reliable sources are using. I have 4 sections: Using (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm alone, using (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm and Riverview as another name, but (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm is main, Riverview (as main and (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm as secondary and using Riverview as main and Riverview only. Feel free to add more as you find them. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Note: By alternative I mean the other name is either mentioned briefly or used as (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) or Riverview ((s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm). In other words the alternative is in brackets. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Using (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm alone
Pattullo Bridge renamed Stal̕əw̓asəm, replacement span to open soon
Pattullo Bridge closures this week as new crossing nears finish line
Overnight closures on Pattullo could delay drivers as new bridge opening nears
Traffic alert: No Surrey-New West crossing for a week starting Feb. 6
Commuters warned as Pattullo, stal̕əw̓asəm bridge closures begin
Pattullo Bridge closing for a week, starting Friday evening
Surrey commuters face Monday delays with Pattullo Bridge closure
Week-long bridge closures between New West and Surrey
Crashes on Port Mann Bridge snarling traffic in both directions
New stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge opens fully to traffic, closing the chapter on Pattullo Bridge
Using (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm as main, mentioning Riverview as alternative
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'stal̕əw̓asəm,' set to open soon
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'Stal̕əw̓asəm,' new span set to open soon
B.C.’s new Pattullo Bridge receives First Nations name — stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
Pattullo Bridge replacement given First Nation name stal̕əw̓asəm
Pattullo replacement connecting Surrey and New Westminster named stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
This is the official new name in a First Nations language for the new Pattullo Bridge
WATCH: Pattullo replacement named stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge
Pattullo Bridge renamed 'stal̕əw̓asəm,' set to open soon
Pattullo Bridge replacement gets new name, date for phased opening
Concerns ahead of week-long Lower Mainland bridge closures
Full closure of Pattullo Bridge starts Friday in New West and Surrey
2 bridge closures for a week means no Surrey-New West crossing in February
Pattullo Bridge closure to begin in early February, scheduled to last 1 week
Pattullo Bridge to fully close for a week as opening of replacement crossing nears
One lane opens on long-awaited Pattullo Bridge replacement
Traffic alert: Week-long bridge closures over Fraser River start Friday night
Metro Vancouver road closures: Pattullo Bridge closing for entire week
Week-long traffic shutdown begins as Pattullo Bridge switches to new replacement
Full week-long closure of Pattullo Bridge and stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge starts Friday
Pattullo Bridge replacement to fully open Saturday
Pattullo Bridge permanently closed as replacement fully opens this weekend
Pattullo now closed forever as new 4-lane bridge opens Saturday morning
89-year-old Pattullo Bridge permanently closes to vehicles on Saturday
Traffic alert: New stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge opens this morning in Metro Vancouver (Note this one doesn't mention Riverview as another name but a translation)
Using Riverview as main, mentioning (s/S)tal̕əw̓asəm as alternative
VIDEO: Designs by Kwantlen First Nation artist cast in concrete for new Riverview bridge
Using Riverview alone
Requested move 10 February 2026
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. The support !votes have it in weight and in policy. Opposes are centered around an inaccurate interpretation of WP:ENG. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult Δx talk to me 08:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Pattullo Bridge replacement → stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge – It's now been 2 months and we have even more sources using stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge (see section I started above). We have many sources using stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge as the main name using it exclusively and even when using Riverview sources are using stal̕əw̓asəm throughout. In the section above I started, I have left out primary sources which exclusively use stal̕əw̓asəm. We have Global traffic report videos ('Week-long bridge closures between New West and Surrey') using it as well. I will cite naming conventions that says "if a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name". Even the 'Designs by Kwantlen First Nation artist cast in concrete for new Riverview bridge' article may use Riverview in title but uses stal̕əw̓asəm in the body. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Supportstal̕əw̓asəm Bridge but not just stal̕əw̓asəm. stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge has established use in reliable sources provided by nom. PersusjCP (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Last discussed in December; see discussion above. I'll note that when WP:GNUE references a "native name", this is not synonymous with "Indigenous name." 162 etc. (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Does it not refer to the native name of language? So in this case is Halkomelem in which the bridge is named in. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It refers to the native language of the place in question. So, German in Germany, Italian in Italy, etc. The native language in British Columbia is English (you could also make an argument for French), but not Halkomelem. 162 etc. (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Either or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English-language_sources) is clear in the opening. "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)" Created Account For Old UI (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Media convention seems to possibly be trending towards stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge which is also being used in official statements, and certainly not stal̕əw̓asəm on its own. I think we can all agree that at the very least this article will eventually be named "Something Bridge", whether that's Riverview Bridge, stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge, or stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge. ~2026-78566-6 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I'll point out that in the articles stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge is used they all tend to then refer to stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge after introducing it. We also don't have titles in Wikipedia like stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview). We would pick the primary so in this case stal̕əw̓asəm and have the alternatives in the opening like: "The stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge (/ˈstɑːləˈɑːsəm/ STAHL-oh-AH-səm) or the Riverview Bridge ". Created Account For Old UI (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
By that logic Wikipedia doesn't have titles like stal̕əw̓asəm. "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw" is the official name of the Squamish Nation, and is often used alongside "Squamish Nation" in articles but the article name is "Squamish Nation" because that's the accessible name for English readers.
I'd be happy with a compromise name like "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" which seems to be commonly used, but all style points to Riverview Bridge being the English Wikipedia name since it is in common use in articles now and, importantly, is in English which is more recognisable to English Wikipedia users. Looking at the above discussion WP:CRITERIA, article titles should be recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. Does "stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge", "Riverview Bridge", or "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" satisfy those criteria best for English Wikipedia users? ~2026-78566-6 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The difference is that in common usage, stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge is the more common term in English-language sources than Riverview Bridge. While official, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw is not the common name used in English-language sources. The naming convention for Squamish Nation follows WP:COMMONNAME. PersusjCP (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It appears that in current common usage, Riverview Bridge and stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge are both referenced in articles which is a bit of a unique circumstance. After seeing "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" in an article do we think the typical English Wikipedia reader would consider "stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge", "Riverview Bridge", or "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" the most recognisable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent article title? Of the three I would argue that "stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" alone is the least recognisable, natural, or consistent title. "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" is not a bad title to embrace all qualities. ~2026-78566-6 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Your own link shows that common usage is indeed to introduce it as stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge and then only use stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge. stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge is the main name, and Riverview Bridge is an English-language alternative. I agree that it shouldn't be stal̕əw̓asəm by itself. @Created Account For Old UI I'm not sure if you meant for it to be stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge or stal̕əw̓asəm, and that's something you should clarify. There is no established use of stal̕əw̓asəm by itself. PersusjCP (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It should be stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge. Just laziness on my part. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think my comment here has meaningfully changed. The bridge is still not meaningfully open and used by the public and there's plenty of time to see what common name is used when media isn't just copy and pasting from government press releases. I now softly oppose but won't get in the way. Futochu (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
It is open. Two lanes Northbound traffic and one lane Soundbound. With Northbound being open since late December and the one lane Soundbound just opening after this weeks closure. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026TT0021-000126Created Account For Old UI (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I can tell you are not local to the area because both the old bridge and the new bridge are very closed at the moment. The northbound lane "opening" was a photo op and only lasted for a week before it was closed again to actually finish construction. Futochu (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Excuse me? You don't get to attack me if I'm local or not.
It was not just a photo op. You said it was a week and a photo op but it lasted 2 whole weeks according to your source. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Since your original comment wanted traffic reports. We have many traffic reports now. So, what's your Too Soon reasoning now? Remember Wikipedia doesn't care about if the bridge is open (that's not a valid reason for Too Soon) or not just if there's sources. There's 27 source above. Is that not enough for you? I think it's crazy to have 27 sources and still say it's Too Soon. Especially when Wikipedia:Too soon specifically refers to that there's not enough Secondary sources. ("It is an encyclopedia that needs to be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.")Created Account For Old UI (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have added 4 new citations to the section above this one (bringing the total to 32) for the bridge being fully open tomorrow. All 4 introduce both names but use stal̕əw̓asəm for the rest of the article. I will add CTV and Global once they make theirs but we have 4 major sources (City, CBC, Daily Hive and Blackpress Media). --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
CTV and Global didn't seem to create articles but did mention it in their news hours. CTV News at 5 and CTV News at both only used stal̕əw̓asəm 15:41 time stamp and Global's video is currently broken but the title uses stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) . I have other videos of their newscast above where they don't say Riverview, but not 100% if they did today. I didn't post in the above section because they will likely be geoblocked outside or Canada.Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Your sources clearly majority provide an agreed upon common English name. WP:ENG~2026-99896-6 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Majority provide is not WP:ENG. "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". Note the most. So which is used more stal̕əw̓asəm or Riverview? Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-99896-6 Please respond to my comment about you warping WP:ENG and how reliable sources clearly prefer stal̕əw̓asəm over Riverview. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support per Created Account For Old UI. Mgasparin (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: For three reasons:
1. News articles commonly use both names with "Riverview Bridge" being the English name.
2. Official signage includes both names with "Riverview Bridge" being the English name - https://imgur.com/a/ijAAG7p
3. Google Maps uses "Riverview Bridge", Apple Maps uses "Stalawasam Bridge", and OpenStreetMap uses "stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge" as the default name and "Riverview Bridge" as the English name.
Therefore, it should be "Riverview Bridge" as per WP:ENG. Future Proof Reader (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I want to point out that Google Maps (it's also stal̕əw̓asəm on the landmark and Riverview on the map right now) is user controlled and same with OpenStreetMaps (so like wikipedia minus the discussion). They're not a reliable sources. Anyone can go in and edit it. It's been going back and forth for a while. Apple (it's also stal̕əw̓asəm for the landmark and Stalawasam on the map) I cannot comment on, but I would assume it's the same. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I'll add that this is the same reasoning as @~2026-99896-6 without addressing my rebuke that just because both are provided about 70% of the time. Every single one just mentions Riverview in the opening and stal̕əw̓asəm for the rest. 30% just uses stal̕əw̓asəm. So in what way does it satisfy "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language," I really would like someone to answer this to me. In both discussions (the old one) every time I point this out I get ignored. If we did a count for stal̕əw̓asəm in articles vs Riverview it wouldn't be close. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Hello all, I'm the one that pushed for the name on OpenStreetMap to be stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge. I wanted to quickly write a quick blurb here to explain the rationale behind that choice, and maybe there are some ideas that you all might want to consider to choose an appropriate article title.
The reason I proposed that name is not to adhere to any specific guidelines or conventions, but simply a matter of practicality. The naming of this bridge is a very controversial topic on its own — there are lots of people out there with very strong opinions against one (or both) of the new bridge's names. Because of how open OSM is to the point where any internet user can come in and edit it, using “stal̕əw̓asəm” or “Riverview” was never going to last. You will always have users who will come in out of opinion or just sheer spite and edit it to what they think is the “correct” name, and it takes time and effort to keep coming back and re-edit it over and over again.
Now, just from the fact that this very discussion exists, it seems that Wikipedia has a few more guardrails against random users coming in and changing the article title on the whim, or if not, at least it has a more structured discussion process. But still, it only takes one person to come in with their own opinion, and even if they may not be able to edit the article title directly, they can still post about it, and they will probably be able to justify themselves quite convincingly. The process may reduce the amount of time and effort needed to maintain the name, but it doesn't make it zero.
For my case on OpenStreetMap, I did not really care about the whole “stal̕əw̓asəm vs Riverview” argument, but what I did want was just to have a consistent name that was the least likely to be disputed or changed, because having a name getting changed back and forth all the time would have been super disruptive for things like routing applications, etc. I definitely don't expect “stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge” to be completely dispute-proof, but hopefully the likelihood will be much lower, requiring much less of my time and/or other mappers' time.
So my advice would be to think very carefully not just about style guides or naming conventions, but of the bigger picture as a whole. Because of how much controversy surrounds this name, the choice you all make is a commitment, not just a choice. How much effort it will take to maintain the name you choose, and is that an amount of effort that you are able and willing to put in?
Good luck to you all!
Edit: After continuing the discussion below, it seems like Wikipedia is a lot more structured when it comes to page naming compared to OSM. I don't think any of the issues I mentioned here will be a problem. In2itivity (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I do appreciate the input on OpenStreetMap's logic. However, I don't think that's something Wikipedia has a problem with because of the ability of Move Locks and Pending Changes Lock. That prevents random users going against previously discussed issues without first discussing it if it becomes a problem. No regular user should ever go against that. If they do it'll be a very bad look. Also Maps maybe restricted in being able to support both names at once. With Wikipedia we can have one redirect to the other when they search for it in the search menu (google will also SEO it). That still leaves one needing to be chosen as the the title for the article. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, you are right; I hadn't thought about the additional possibilities that redirects provide. If that makes the article equally searchable and findable with both names, then I wouldn't see any problem in using the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name as the primary article title. I will post another top-level comment in support of that. In2itivity (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Support: It is the name of the bridge. We don’t call Mark Carney “Justin Trudeau Replacement”. Voxilo (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:OFFICIAL It’s not Wikipedia policy to automatically use official names. If that were the case, we’d be moving articles to things like “Gulf of America” instead of Gulf of Mexico, which obviously goes against common usage. Mark Carney is the name commonly used in English sources and is written in the English script. Were his name to commonly be written as マーク カーオニー (Justin Trudeau Replacement) in English language articles, then we would indeed title his Wikipedia article "Justin Trudeau Replacement". ~2026-99896-6 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
But it is when Reliable sources have a preference for the Official name. Users are also allowed to expand reasoning from the request mover. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment:Crossing Delays Sign I took this picture this morning while in New Westminster. Not sure if relevant but interesting, shows an anglicized version of the indigenous name on an official communication. Jupiterus77 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Edit: My argument here constitutes editorializing and is thus not helpful. I have posted updated findings in a new comment. Please skip this argument.
Support for “stal̕əw̓asəmBridge”, under the condition that “RiverviewBridge” becomes (or stays) a valid redirect to this article.
After discussing with Created Account For Old UI above, I have decided to support the use of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name as the primary article title. Although it is standard on Wikipedia to use an English name for an article title, I believe this should have an exception, as using the English name here would go against the reasons why the bridge was named in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ language in the first place. It would be a big shame to lose or hinder the recognition for the local First Nations groups that this name intends to provide.
Assuming that Created Account For Old UI is correct, having “Riverview Bridge” as a redirect is sufficient to ensure the article is easily findable through Wikipedia search and other search engines such as Google, using either the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ or English name. I no longer see any issue with leaving “Riverview” out of the article title, provided such redirects are made available.
@In2itivity It is indeed noble to want to make an exception for social justice but please consider WP:NPOV. This policy is non-negotiable. Wikipedia is intended to describe not prescribe. ~2026-99896-6 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
First with warp WP:ENG now you are accusing Wikipedia:NPOV when you are violating it. It clearly says "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I asked you a question on which is used more stal̕əw̓asəm or Riverview in reliable sources which is WP:ENG. You have yet to respond because you can clearly see that Riverview is only ever use to supplement stal̕əw̓asəm. So, you are also violating Wikipedia:NPOV. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I have made my points clear. Choosing a name to further a cause, no matter how positive, is clearly editorializing and should not be used as an argument for an article name. ~2026-99896-6 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
You don't get to decide whether reliable sources are being editorialized. That in itself is POV pushing. We go by what reliable sources say. We don't get to decide they are being bias. So thanks for sharing you are violating Wikipedia:NPOV by claiming the reliable sources are being bias. I'm also talking about your POV pushing not In2itivity. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
You miss my argument. The top level comment support states the following:
"Although it is standard on Wikipedia to use an English name for an article title, I believe this should have an exception, as using the English name here would go against the reasons why the bridge was named in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ language in the first place. It would be a big shame to lose or hinder the recognition for the local First Nations groups that this name intends to provide."
This is an example of editorializing and goes against Wikipedia's principles. ~2026-99896-6 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not arguing In2itivity. I'm arguing about your clear POV pushing. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, alright. I took a look at those policies, and I think yeah I may be in the wrong on this one.
I think what would be best is to take a step back and look at the policies, and come back with a list of my findings. I need to get this off my mind so that I can focus on other matters, so I'll try to get this done as soon as I can. In2itivity (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken the time to look at this with a fresh pair of eyes. Here are my findings:
WP:ENG does not ask “What is the most common English name?”; it asks “Which name is the most common among English-language sources?” Notice how it does not actually require the name itself to be in English; the fact that it is commonly part of English usage is sufficient to satisfy.
In fact, becoming part of common English usage is exactly what the name “stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge” was intended for. It appears this have been relatively successful, as the name has indeed been adopted quite commonly in local media. English-language news agencies use the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name, and so do radio traffic reports. I did not find many reputable sources who primarily use Riverview.
Road signage and digital traffic displays also need to be taken into account, as they provide an on-the ground physical presence of the bridge and its name. Road signage at the bridge itself names both the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ and English names, while digital displays use a transliteration of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name: STAL'EW'ASEM BRIDGE. This adds to the prominence of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name compared to the English name.
Social media has a much more even-split between “stal̕əw̓asəmBridge”, “RiverviewBridge”, and other names such as “NewPattulloBridge”. However, I think it can be agreed upon that social media does not fit the criteria of a reliable source for WP:ENG.
I do not consider Google Maps, Apple Maps, or OSM to be reliable sources either. We do not know where the data is coming from to feed these mapping services, and their reliability has been under question several times in the past (e.g. accidental renaming of Cambie St to Cambie Rd).
Thus, I find that “stal̕əw̓asəmBridge” satisfies WP:ENG, perhaps even to a greater extent than “RiverviewBridge”.
WP:NPOV does not necessarily require a compound name; in fact it is discouraged
It is very easy to argue for or against using “stal̕əw̓asəm” or “Riverview” alone because of the risk of showing bias for or against either of the names. In fact, that was what I previously argued in earlier comments before carefully consulting the naming guidelines.
It has been suggested to use a compound name, such as “stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge”. However, WP:POVNAMING discourages this:
Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.
This was also pointed out to me in an earlier discussion, and it makes sense. Redirects are sufficient to ensure that the article can easily be found through a search of either name. Additionally, transliteration may be in order (see below).
Thus I believe “stal̕əw̓asəm (Riverview) Bridge” should be out of the running for article title.
I don't think so. The article did not really have a large discussion on the naming, not to the extent of this discussion at present. The page was created under the name “Musqueamview Street” and while there were several comments opposing a move to “šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm Street”, I did not see much by way of confirming the English name of Musqueamview.
News articles are a lot more mixed on this name, and I did see a significant usage of Musqueamview, a lot more than Riverview. Even the City of Vancouver's own website has set the article title to “Musqueamview Street”
Additionally, šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm is considerably more difficult to transliterate compared to stal̕əw̓asəm, a step that may be required per WP:ENG.
Furthermore, the street is not very notable and it is debatable whether it really needs its own article.
Thus I don't believe it has set any sort of precedent, and we shouldn't use that case to decide what to do here.
Transliteration may be needed
WP:ENG also states that transliteration may be needed for a name that includes nonstandard English characters. This makes sense and in fact it is probably necessary in order for the page address to work. This would also be helpful in boosting the recognizability of the name and helping viewers to find the article.
The guideline also states, if there is a common English form of the name, this is preferred over a systematically transliterated name. One could argue that it should be Riverview for that purpose, but Riverview is an alternative name itself, not an alternative form of the original name.
I am not well-versed in transliteration, but “Stalewasem Bridge” seems like a good starting point.
I took a quick look as to whether it would be possible to have “Stalewasem Bridge” as the page's actual title, but perhaps to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have the title while viewing the page display as “stal̕əw̓asəmBridge”. I did not figure out for sure whether this was actually possible or not, but this feels like it would be ideal.
My conclusion
After reviewing WP:ENG, WP:POVNAMING, news articles, and my notes from several surveys of the area, the only conclusion I draw is that the article title that makes the most sense is “stal̕əw̓asəmBridge”, or a transliterated version such as “StalewasemBridge”.
The bridge is now open to drivers and its name is displayed on official signs and displays, so while there's no rush to conclude these discussions and move the page, I don't see any need to continue waiting for further changes to circumstances.
Re-reading the existing discussion, it seems I have independently come to the same or similar conclusion as User:Created Account For Old UI, with the added step of having a transliteration if necessary. Hopefully though it will still be possible to set the article's displayed title to have the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name itself. In2itivity (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for this write up. I will say however, that WP:ENG does not note that non-English names should be translated. It says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." All of the characters in stal̕əw̓asəm are in the Latin alphabet. So transliteration is not needed. Your interpretation of WP:ENG is correct in that a word that is not originally English can be used if it is in common English usage. A preponderance of sources shows that stal̕əw̓asəm is being used in English. stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge is English, just using characters not common in English. While I have my personal feelings about keeping words from other languages in their original script in everyday English, it is clearly established English usage in this case. Frankly, the opposition to this based on the grounds of "it's not being used" is a bit absurd when there is a compiled list of sources using it.PersusjCP (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone is saying the name isn’t used. The issue is that “stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge” was clearly not intended as the English name. Most reliable sources use the English name, so what’s the reason not to follow that?
Also, Halkomelem uses a modified Latin alphabet with characters like θ, ƛ̓, and ʔ. By the logic of "all characters are in the Lain alphabet", we could move Anna Karenina to Анна Каренина since it’s also written in a different language but still uses letters derived from the Latin script which doesn’t make much sense. It would also be inconsistent if, say, a future road named šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmasəm were transliterated, but stal̕əw̓asəm was not. ~2026-99896-6 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Mentioning Riverview is not the same as using. For example 50 Cent's article is not at Curtis Jackson. Even though a lot of sources will mention that his real name is Curtis Jackson then continue using 50 Cent. You continue to conflate the two to support your point and ignore all me messages asking you to address that. Анна Каренина is Cyrillic script not Latin. hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ is still Latin with extensions which is still considered Latin. Once again you are manipulating facts to support your view. You are also ignoring the official name is stal̕əw̓asəm and "While an English translation of the bridge name is provided, learning and using the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name is encouraged". Which is why all the reliable sources uses it. 50 Cent even has examples of articles of the opposite using Curtis Jackson but mentioning 50 Cent. There's no cases (except for maybe one that was added but that only used Riverview for title. The body uses stal̕əw̓asəm, so it's a case for both) for this and that's still at 50 CentCreated Account For Old UI (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-99896-6 It's policy. Please read WP:ENG. First, established use in English-language sources makes it work as an English name. We have plenty of non-English Latin characters in articles about Turkish, Icelandic, Vietnamese, etc. English uses non-English words all the time. This is just an example of a non-English word being inserted into English. You can tell because "Bridge" is an English word, and it is being used in English-language sources. They introduce Riverview as an alternative to the unfamiliar at the beginning, and then use staľəw̓asəm throughout. I have NO idea where you are getting the idea that Riverview is more frequently used than staľəw̓asəm. You can read the sources and count the amount of times it appears. It is pure WP:OR to guess at the intent of the bridge namers beyond what appears in the sources. Here's what they say: staľəw̓asəm is used in English and is originally from another language (like many words in English, such as déjà vu). This is what we then see with its usage in the sources. staľəw̓asəm Bridge is an English name for Wikipedia purposes based on its appearance in English language sources.
Second, the difference is that Cyrillic is NOT Latin. It is a different alphabet. Schwa (ə) and diacritics exist in the Latin alphabet. There is a different between letters in the English alphabet, which Wikipedia does not require all titles to be in, and the Latin alphabet, which Wikipedia requires all titles to be in. Please, read WP:ENG.
Also, @Created Account For Old UI, I recommend not WP:BLUDGEONING debates by replying to every opposing comment. PersusjCP (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Support There's a lot going on in this discussion that's a bit much to parse, but I do want to raise the discussion I had a while back at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228#MOS:NOTLATIN and the Americanist phonetic notation. I would also be hesitant, leaning oppose, to using "Stalewasem Bridge” unless that form is used by reliable sources, and not electronic signs which most likely don't have support for the characters used in APN. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I do want to note, the term "transliteration" is a stretch. There is no system for transliteration for APN. English, annoyingly, is not consistently 1 to 1 with sounds like APN is, where one letter corresponds to a specific sound. There are a myriad of potential spellings for a single word written out in APN, one example can be Muthkwey and the names it was referred to as. There exist historical "transliterations" (which are not identified as such), moreso attempted phonetic butcherings in Anglicized form because APN to the average reader familiar with English text can be difficult to parse. The majority of these were from prior to the 2000s. If there is an alternative spelling for accessibility purposes that is used consistently by reliable secondary sources, then a secondary conversation can be opened up. However, transliteration is generally not possible for APN for a variety of reasons, including the limitations of the available letters in the English language, nor is there much of an incentive to do so. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support because that's the name of the new bridge. However I oppose using the transliteration. 2600 etc (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Support – Move page to Stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge. It's both the official name and common name per most secondary sources. RedBlueGreen93 08:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support "stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge" per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support Lots of sources I've seen using only "stal̕əw̓asəm", seems like the common name is going that way, English-language alternative notwithstanding. Mgasparin (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
.svg){kind=small}
