This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation style follows similar pages such as American and Danish unless those pages are redirected and merged this one should not be an exception.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't base the creation of one page off another. We base them off the guidelines for disambiguation pages. The use of these pages is for when there is a word that has many uses or has an article that discusses the meaning of the word in depth. This is not the case here. Tahitians are only a part of the subjects listed. This is nothing but a directly page and violates the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Do not revert based on examples when you cannot demonstrate that the examples are correct to begin with.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation guideline asks that we eliminate "partial title matches," but the current location of an article is not what determines whether something is a "partial title match." In this case, for example, our article on the language called "Tahitian" is at Tahitian language because the title "Tahitian" is ambiguous. However, the language is often referred to specifically as "Tahitian," which makes it an appropriate entry on the Tahitian disambiguation page. Dekimasuよ! 19:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will bring this up to an administrator or discussion board in the future for reconsideration. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to an administrator over a content dispute? Seriously? Did I break the Wiki? I suggest any number of boards or the projects.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I merely disagreed and I don't know how to articulate my argument against this just base on policies and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is basically what I am putting for which isn't usually very strong of an argument. So I need to see if my opposition is in the minority in this by seek other users' opinions, --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just threatened me with admin over a content dispute. You even edited the comment to be clearer. If you don't understand Wikipedia policy and Guidelines and all your arguments are based on your passionate interest in a subject, you are setting yourself and others up for conflict and disruption and based on little more than how you feel about something or what you like or don't like. Sometimes you make a good point and sometimes you just drive a fight over everything to a point of distraction. Try to begin reviewing policy, guidelines and procedure. You are too intelligent to be arguing on Wikipedia where you continually admit you don't know the policies and guidelines after this much content creation and years on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Our policies and guidelines are meant to give us the guidance on the direction for creation of articles. If you want to ignore the rules you have to show how it is an improvement to the project. The way it was, was just a simple directory. There is limited use for the term Tahitian. The term means the people or culture. Languages are their own subject such as Hawaiian language and do not place the word "language" in parenthesis. There is no actual article on Tahitian culture, just a section. That does nnot need to be added to a disambiguation page. That's just a directory function.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not placing the word in parentheses is not in and of itself an indication that the term is unambiguous. Using "Hawaiian language" as the article title rather than "Hawaiian (language)" is an example of "natural disambiguation" (WP:NATURAL); this is still a form of disambiguation. Dekimasuよ! 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I get that. its almost directly from the Dab guideline page.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As at my talk: rather than eliminating the dab page, I strongly suggest a move discussion (proposing Tahitian→Tahitian (disambiguation)) to determine whether there is consensus that the primary topic of "Tahitian" is the article at Tahitians. Tahitian has been a disambiguation page for the last ten years without any issues. The title "Tahitian" is clearly ambiguous, and as such it is unlikely that the disambiguation page should simply be eliminated. Dekimasuよ! 19:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the dab page a bit to make it conform better with WP:MOSDAB: as there's an article at Tahitians, and the dab page covers both "Tahitian" and "Tahitians", this needs to be reflected. I think I've got it right now, have tweaked the Wiktionary link and added a "See also" to sweep up partial title matches. Seems a standard dab page along the lines of French etc - by widespread convention the language is disambiguated as "Foo language" rather than "Foo (language)", so the dab page might look at first sight as if the language is a "partial title match" but it's a disambiguated title for something commonly known as "Foo". ("I speak Foo fluently"). PamD 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Tahitians uses Tahitian as its dab, I don't think this is a case for using a primary topic setup here, since the plain title, Tahitian, isn't a primary topic redirect to Tahitians with the dab at Tahitian (disambiguation). The base title of the dab doesn't have a primary topic associated with it. Similarly German doesn't call Germans its primary topic, and Italian doesn't call Italians its primary topic. Dekimasuよ! 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right - it's complicated when a dab page's scope covers two words one of which has a primary topic and one not, but you seem to have got it right. Sorry about that. PamD 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No...that is not correct. Tahitian and Tahitians are the exact same thing, like Hawaiian is the same concept as Native Hawaiians. This is not the same as French where the term has a larger, well sourced number of uses making the concept ambiguous and where there are actual Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. Yes this is complicated but the guidelines for the situation are in the dab guideline page and I believe the best compromise is to move this dab page to Tahitian (disambiguation).--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tahitians" is specifically not ambiguous with respect to the language, which is never called "Tahitians." However, "Tahitian" does not only refer to Tahitians. Of the top ten Google Books for "Tahitian," for example, 5 refer to the language, 4 to "things of Tahiti," and only 1 even arguably refers to the people. In any subsequent move request, data will be more helpful than claims. Dekimasuよ! 23:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now basically that is arguing the semantics of the way the article was named. Where Hawaiians is a redirect, Tahitians is an article similar to Native Hawaiians which could just as easily be titled Kānaka maoli, the more common native language usage. Its the concept not the title and I think it is possible we are arguing around each other in some manner now. Statistical data from Google searches are to be taken with a grain of salt. They can be a bit deceiving to begin with but again, the people, culture and "things" are of the broad concept best described in an article. I suggest an RFC first to see if this should be a dab or not. If so, this article could have a move proposal to go over the redirect.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine redirecting Hawaiians to Native Hawaiians with a redirect hatnote for Hawaiians (disambiguation), which would note Native Hawaiians as the primary topic for "Hawaiians" and the articles named "The Hawaiians" as other options. That would take those two entries off of this dab and change the target of Hawaiians, but leave the Hawaiian dab alone--"Hawaiian" is the term that is really ambiguous without a primary topic here, not Hawaiians, as far as I can see. The dab guideline asks for Google results as one form of evidence for determining the primary topic, so while they can be deceptive, they are better than claims without evidence. I don't think an RFC would be productive; the ten plus years without change--and never even a single conversation about this on the talk page--are a good indication of the consensus this type of page has. But of course I won't try to prevent you from starting an RFC. Dekimasuよ! 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I would be fine redirecting Hawaiians to Native Hawaiians with a redirect hatnote for Hawaiians (disambiguation), which would note Native Hawaiians as the primary topic for "Hawaiians" and the articles named "The Hawaiians" as other options." Yes, I agree. That seems reasonable. At the core of my disagreement is that I see the word Hawaiian as being unambiguously of or related to the Hawaiian Islands. That would be the people, the culture, and all related under the banner of the category of a generic usage (which may, or may not be worth mention in the dab) of the term Hawaiian. When there are more articles on the encyclopedia to actually disambiguate and some agreement on what to properly list etc., as well as a more refined and separate article on the identity (the native language usage as cultural and community identity) could be a great improvement from where I stand.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what relates the items to each other (particularly when "Hawaiian" is an adjective), but do not agree that readers would rather read about what makes those various things able to be called "Hawaiian" than be able to select from a list of articles about the particular "Hawaiian (n.)" they were seeking. I still don't know what "more articles on the encyclopedia to actually disambiguate" means; as I have said, each link on that page has an article, including the defunct football team and the film. Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding might be based on you also not disagreeing with my other assessment that there are to many links to articles that merely have the name in the title. They may be blue linked but I think it is to things that are not the same subject. I do not believe that the reference to "I'm flying Hawaiian" to be enough of a mainstream usage and would need to see some sourcing for these types of things to accept that they have enough weight to be used to disambag the term "Hawaiian" with them, but as long as there is some consensus for that sort of thing and you could support a move request of Hawaiian to Hawaiian (disambiguation), that seems to say we are at least have some similar goals.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing the use of the term in that manner to be enough weight to disambiguate...but the work you have done and the discussion itself was very productive and satisfies a great deal of my concerns! In other words...this seems to work for me...so thank you very much.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a moment, take a look at Kanaka to see if anything catches you eye needing cleanup.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
