Talk:Hawaiian

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

Hawaii

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles

Hawaiian subjects

I've removed the following redlink as its meaning is unclear without more context. Does anyone know what this is supposed to refer to? :

Hawaiian subjects, Kanaka Maoli, Kanaka Hawaii

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

This disambiguation style follows similar pages such as American, Danish and other similar pages unless those pages are redirected and merged this one should not be an exception since if there is a problem and that these pages conflicts with the policy it must be addressed everywhere.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite policy in the creation of these articles and not just example where the same or similar mistakes are made.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This need a wider discussion base in the future. Policies are not always followed and there are usually good reasons for it. I will bring this up in the future when I have more time. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a wider group of editors is always a very good thing in discussions. Guidelines are followed unless there is a good reason to WP:IAR and there is a consensus of editors to agree to it. I actually suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject disambiguation may be the best place to start.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, disambiguation pages are not articles, but navigational pages. "Hawaiian" as a noun is clearly ambiguous, referring to (at the very least) both the Hawaiian language and the Native Hawaiians, but also to other things as shown on the current disambiguation page. The disambiguation guideline does tell us to create a disambiguation page under these conditions. If your argument is that there is a primary topic, please initiate a move request to Hawaiian (disambiguation) rather than eliminating the disambiguation page; the existence of a primary topic would not indicate that there are no other uses for "Hawaiian." I suspect that there will not be a consensus to institute a primary topic redirect, but WP:BRD (which is itself an essay, not a policy or a guideline) does not ask for "consensus for a reversion." It asks that we begin discussion as soon as we find out there is disagreement on the topic. I suggest that the discussion begin from the status quo, which is the dab page at this title as has been the case for the past eleven years. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a well formed dab page in line with WP:MOSDAB: by convention in Wikipedia many languages are disambiguated as "Foo language" rather than "Foo (language)", so the entry for Hawaiian language is a disambiguated use of "Hawaiian", not a partial title match. Other uses of the word, even if not connected to the Island of Hawaii, are valid content for the dab page - and the two "The Hawaiians" uses are valid here, as many users will search for a term without using "The" because they "know" to look under "H" not "T" in an A-Z listing for these terms. I've added the "in title" entry to "See also" as it can help some users and is a common addition to dab pages, and clarified the scope to show that plural uses are included (not always the case - there is sometimes a different dab page for plurals). PamD 22:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't seem to follow the concepts of creating a disambiguation page. I am following the above analogy about Foo, but what is being overlooked is that in this instance Foo= Hawaiian, a broad concept but one that can be described on an article and the relevant links are all describing the concept. No, dab pages are not supposed to add pages that simply have the word in the tile. Now, WP:DABNAME does state that:"The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation).". So, if there is to be a dab page, clearly Tahitians is the primary topic as Native Hawaiian is and therefore the disambiguation page should be Tahitian (disambiguation) and {{Hawaiian (disambiguation). That would seem to be a reasonable compromise to suggest here at least. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a space to discuss this sort of move through WP:RM, again, is what I would suggest if you still want to change the setup here. However, I don't think the request will succeed given the format of German/Germans, Italian/Italians, etc., probably because in general the languages are not understood to be a subtopic of the people, but a completely independent topic; for that matter, if we were to have a broad concept article in these cases, the natural place to discuss them as a set/primary topic would seem to be Tahiti or Hawaii, not at Tahitian, Tahitians, Hawaii, or Native Hawaiians. Dekimasuよ! 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, you are not addressing one of the main points...we have to have articles for there to be an ambiguous term. We should limit the debate to the related dab project, talk page of the guide or on the dab pages. These venues are where discussion has already been initiated besides your own talk page. Debate is whether or not this dab page should exist or if it should be titled with "(disambiguation)".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand "we have to have articles for there to be an ambiguous term," since all of the entries on the disambiguation page have articles. If you think the pages should be titled with "(disambiguation)", moves are needed, and those would go through WP:RM. I do dispute that Tahitians is the primary topic of the noun Tahitian and that Native Hawaiians is the primary topic of the noun Hawaiian. I do not believe that dab concept articles at Tahitian and Hawaiian are appropriate either, because a language called "Hawaiian" and a person called "Hawaiian" are not part of a single category of thing that is adequately capable of being described in a single article. Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, from WP:DAB: "Determining a primary topic: There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move." Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I 'm not trying to fight here so I don't want you to think I am challenging replies just for the challenge itself. You asked for clarity on what I meant by having to have articles. Dab guidelines do not allow for the disambiguation of concepts not covered in the encyclopedia with blue links. Your opinion that Hawaiian/Tahitian are not a single category, while correct, is again stepping to the side of the point that in disambiguation guidelines we would include the article of the language in the disambiguation page..if it existed and if not, would still probably be best to have a hat note on the two articles directing to each other with something along the lines of "For the Hawaiian language see..." and "For the Hawaiian people see...". But this almost has to be separated into, first whether or not to disambiguate to begin with...then we would decide if and what is the primary topic...after that. Because...that is, after all, my point, it isn't that there is no primary topic, I am saying the topic is a broad term best described in an article or redirect because all related articles are a description of the broad term of what is or is not "Hawaiian".

Should there be a consensus in the end to maintain a dab page, then we would seek experts and interested parties from for a broader range of opinions on that subject. Dabing or not needs experts on the dab guidelines but if you decide to request a consensus on what (if anything) is the primary topic (the article to lead off the dab page as the basic concept) of what a Hawaiian or Tahitian is, we would want those interested in the topic to weigh in as well as, perhaps, even linguistic or grammar expert/editors. We could even just go straight to that to garner the a wider group for discussion now before we begin, however I don't believe using WP:RM is appropriate as I am not requesting a title change. A redirect or dab content is still...content and not related to move. There is the option to request deletion of the Dab article but I think that might be extreme at this point. I suggest the best route could be to simple add a neutrally worded RFC here and advertise it to the proper projects.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand "Dab guidelines do not allow for the disambiguation of concepts not covered in the encyclopedia with blue links." Everything on the dab is covered by a bluelink. Once there are three bluelinks on a dab, there's not really any question that having a disambiguation page is appropriate. We don't make a decision not to disambiguate--we disambiguate any place it is appropriate to disambiguate. The only question is where it goes (i.e. whether or not there is a primary topic). The status quo is to have the dab page at the plain title Hawaiian (or Tahitian) and the proper venue to change that (to Hawaiian (disambiguation) or Tahitian (disambiguation)) is through a move request. I am not sure why we would specifically be seeking experts here--everyone is just an editor--but I have always done a good deal of my Wikipedia work on disambiguation and I am sure that's the intent of the disambiguation guideline. ...Specifically, a broad "description of the broad term of what is or is not 'Hawaiian'" is likely not what people want to see when they do a search for "Hawaiian" or click on a wikilink to "Hawaiian," because discussion of the category "Hawaiian" is a very small portion of the topic of "Hawaiian language," whereas if you are discussing seven things called "iPhones" there is basically one underlying topic. Dekimasuよ! 02:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Artists Edit-a-thon

Attendees here at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Artists Edit-a-thon note that when in Hawaii, it may be considered more polite to refer to oneself as a "resident of Hawaii", a "Hawaiian local", or a person from Hawaii, rather than "Hawaiian" if you are not of Native Hawaiian descent. Future editing events focused on Hawaii may want to discuss how changes in usage of the term "Hawaiian" should be reflected in this disambiguation page. --Djembayz (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]