Talk:Manyana

where's the stub tag? !Xientist 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation?

Why does a white town of 500 people get an unqualified page to itself (town name only, no country). The town of the same name with 3500 black people is qualified by its country name. Unconscious racism, an inability to be consistent, or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.192.228 (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What a stupid thing to say. Why is this Manyana a "white town"? What does that even mean? Yes it's racist, nothing to do with the fact that this article was created TWELVE YEARS before the article about the "black town". Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:10BD:39AE:F1E2:4874:BCDA:CA0E (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to be defensive. A white town is a town full of white people (its 2.7% Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander at the last census), its perhaps too colloquial a usage for those whose first language is not English. Now the age of the article seems less relevant than the 48 edits made to the article since its creation, so there was plenty of time and edit activity for correction of that unfortunate colonisation of the location name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.158.214 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The census doesn't record skin color as I'm sure you know, which is why you chose that meaningless figure of 2.7%. Actually only 34% of inhabitants have Australian ancestry, according to the census, which still says nothing about skin color, but has equally little bearing on the article name. It's a bizarre suggestion. Neither town appears on the Setswana Wikipedia - shock horror! You're a real hero going on a crusade about the name of two stub articles on Wikipedia. There are many other towns and cities with unqualified names for you to virtue signal on e.g. London, Amsterdam, Warrington, Hopetown. Perhaps most shocking is Torbay, which is 97.5% white and has no Māori inhabitants, having its own unqualified page, whereas the Auckland suburb of the same name is found via a disambiguation page, despite being only 91.6% European and 3.8% Māori. Outrageous "colonisation"! What's the relevance of the number of edits? 51 actually, if you include the article creation, the other has 11. So you're surprised nobody had the same warped ideas as you within that period? I think you need to get a hobby. 2001:8B0:10BD:39AE:F1E2:4874:BCDA:CA0E (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm so glad you agree that the inconsistency is a problem. Crusade? If you think this is a crusade you really need to get out more. And virtue signalling? To you? Seriously? Now if you don't know about the Australian census recording ATSI heritage but want to tell me how it works, you might need to do some research. The percentage of the population you cite as having Australian ancestry is consistent with the high level of post-war immigration. You do have some clue where those people came from don't you? Being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is not meaningless as you assert, and despite your assertions to the contrary, it does strongly tend to indicate skin colour.

The relevance of the number of edits is derived from your talking about the creation date of the page, as though it's content was set in stone at that time. I didn't chose to go down that path, you did. It is typical of Wikipedia to endlessly and immaterially edit pages while not ever converging on a consistency (or in the case of one of my favorite pages) fixing problems that would require someone to actually proof read the page. I can see that you are getting over-excited here, I'll stop now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.158.214 (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)