" 
 *""These should be discussed at a centralized location."" LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure.  Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects.  And as for ""There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't"" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of ""X"", ""Xs"", or ""X people"" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact.  It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which ""we"" long ago had devised the use of ""FOO"" and often ""PREFERRED ENDONYM"" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people).  The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without ""people/tribe/nation/peoples"" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost.  Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort.  Pfft.  NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock.  The way to ""address this issue properly"" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed.  You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.  "