| Revision as of 07:31, 27 May 2014 editPgallert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,468 edits →PRIMARYTOPIC per view stats: "Kavango languages are spoken by Kavango people" is problematic← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:35, 29 May 2014 edit undoSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →PRIMARYTOPIC per view stats: comments in reply to PgallertNext edit → |
| Line 28: |
Line 28: |
|
::::* It is also incorrect to say that ''Every speaker of a language classified as ] is a member of a tribe that belongs to the ]'', as the latter is restricted to the Namibian side of the Kavango. |
|
::::* It is also incorrect to say that ''Every speaker of a language classified as ] is a member of a tribe that belongs to the ]'', as the latter is restricted to the Namibian side of the Kavango. |
|
::::So all we have is that ''some'' Kavango speakers are Kavango people, and ''some'' Kavango people are Kavango speakers, with the additional caveat that "Kavango speakers" is a term that's not in common use but highly specific to language classifications by scientists. Cheers, ] (]) 07:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
::::So all we have is that ''some'' Kavango speakers are Kavango people, and ''some'' Kavango people are Kavango speakers, with the additional caveat that "Kavango speakers" is a term that's not in common use but highly specific to language classifications by scientists. Cheers, ] (]) 07:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree that wording was redundant and misleading, but far more misleading was the dab-maker's claim that a "Kavango language" exists, or the premise that a redirect from that to the ] was valid, given what you have explained; where the space-endash-space comes from in that title I don't know, but I haven't seen endash or space-endash-space in other hyphenated language titles before. Given the non-existence of that language named as such with the taunt "editor is not reading the guidelines" is comical; given that the editor who made that comment hasn't shown that he has read or accepts TITLE/PRECISION/CONCISENESS or PRIMARYTOPIC or he wouldn't be conducting the edit wars he has been, nor would he have moved thousands of titles in spite of them, not rewritten NCL to suit himself. Misleading/accusatory edit comments like that are staple fare with him; see ] for several examples; among too many to list/diff. I'm not going to bother to undo his latest reversion to ], even though it reinstates the existence of a language that does not, in fact, exist; he has also contended that a ] exist, based similarly on "linguistics shorthand" references in certain sources...which serves to underline that it is generous to call linguists "scientists", which they are not, as evidence and fact mean little in their terminology and habits, just as we are seeing here.] (]) 07:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
The typically snide commentary from Kwami notwithstanding, determination of the PRIMARYTOPIC not being something he likes to address per his claim that languages are equally primary topics to people, I agree with the point that the Kavango Region/Okavango Region, being defunct, is not a valid PRIMARYTOPIC; and if you read that guideline carefully, and ] also, two-word already-disambiguated titles are not main dabs for the standalone term, and "Kavango" as a root has ''one'' meaning...whether the people's name derives from that of the river (the Okavango, not the Kavango as was first put here, among other redirects) or vice versa is pertinent to deciding that. And as noted by Pgallert, there is no language called "Kavango" despite ongoing re-instatements of "Kavango languages" in place of its target; so really it shouldn't be here at all except as a "See also". Muddling of terms by the method being applied here this way is typical of the games being played to prevent standalone titles being for what they mean; the name of a people. Determining PRIMARYTOPIC is about more than view stats, of course, I haven't had time to run google searches and study incoming links as to the context of those links. "Ask 'Skookum' what the primary topic is" entails having me do all the work that he doesn't want to do, for fear of having to admit he's wrong about languages being "equally primary topics" to the peoples they are named for. (he always gets my name wrong, to the point where he hostile-edited the ] article thinking it was my userpage). |
|
The typically snide commentary from Kwami notwithstanding, determination of the PRIMARYTOPIC not being something he likes to address per his claim that languages are equally primary topics to people, I agree with the point that the Kavango Region/Okavango Region, being defunct, is not a valid PRIMARYTOPIC; and if you read that guideline carefully, and ] also, two-word already-disambiguated titles are not main dabs for the standalone term, and "Kavango" as a root has ''one'' meaning...whether the people's name derives from that of the river (the Okavango, not the Kavango as was first put here, among other redirects) or vice versa is pertinent to deciding that. And as noted by Pgallert, there is no language called "Kavango" despite ongoing re-instatements of "Kavango languages" in place of its target; so really it shouldn't be here at all except as a "See also". Muddling of terms by the method being applied here this way is typical of the games being played to prevent standalone titles being for what they mean; the name of a people. Determining PRIMARYTOPIC is about more than view stats, of course, I haven't had time to run google searches and study incoming links as to the context of those links. "Ask 'Skookum' what the primary topic is" entails having me do all the work that he doesn't want to do, for fear of having to admit he's wrong about languages being "equally primary topics" to the peoples they are named for. (he always gets my name wrong, to the point where he hostile-edited the ] article thinking it was my userpage). |
|
|
|
|
the large number of incoming links here are significant as to what is the primary topic of "Kavango". View stats, incoming links and google states were not done before this disambiguation page was made; that Kavango Region probably outranks Kavango language is a given, as in other similar cases; though the Kavango people are the primary usage of Kavango as the context of the mass of incoming links no doubt demonstrate, as is so often the case; imposing an intermediary disambiguation page upon the reader when a simple hatnote would do is a pattern repeated across hundreds or similar titles..... this page may suit a certain particular editor's preference/agenda about "forced
An analysis of the incoming links may show contexts re the regions of the rivers, but the standalone link in most cases is, as elsewhere, most likely to do with the people whom the regions and the language group are named for. On that note, people looking up the standalone name Kavango did so 464 times this month so far, and 1477 times in the last 90 days. The former name of the Kavango Region, Okavango, likewise got more views than the language article did, at 200 times this month and 984 times in the last 90 days.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The typically snide commentary from Kwami notwithstanding, determination of the PRIMARYTOPIC not being something he likes to address per his claim that languages are equally primary topics to people, I agree with the point that the Kavango Region/Okavango Region, being defunct, is not a valid PRIMARYTOPIC; and if you read that guideline carefully, and WP:NCDAB also, two-word already-disambiguated titles are not main dabs for the standalone term, and "Kavango" as a root has one meaning...whether the people's name derives from that of the river (the Okavango, not the Kavango as was first put here, among other redirects) or vice versa is pertinent to deciding that. And as noted by Pgallert, there is no language called "Kavango" despite ongoing re-instatements of "Kavango languages" in place of its target; so really it shouldn't be here at all except as a "See also". Muddling of terms by the method being applied here this way is typical of the games being played to prevent standalone titles being for what they mean; the name of a people. Determining PRIMARYTOPIC is about more than view stats, of course, I haven't had time to run google searches and study incoming links as to the context of those links. "Ask 'Skookum' what the primary topic is" entails having me do all the work that he doesn't want to do, for fear of having to admit he's wrong about languages being "equally primary topics" to the peoples they are named for. (he always gets my name wrong, to the point where he hostile-edited the Skookum article thinking it was my userpage).
NB A large series of TWODABS pages created from redirects-to-primary topic have been placed with {{only-two-dabs}} templates, per TWODABS, were removed by Kwami since I placed them, claiming in his edit comment "per TWODABS", even though it was TWODABS which mandated placing them. In this case, Kavango, he came up with the river and more to "force" the disambiguation page; even though the river is the Okavango. Not the first time valid templates have been removed by Kwami, and not the first time he's claimed a guideline mandates the opposite of what it does.Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
