Talk:Ama language (New Guinea)

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Papua New Guinea Low‑importance

	New Guinea portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Papua New Guinea, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Papua New Guinea 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.Papua New GuineaWikipedia:WikiProject Papua New GuineaTemplate:WikiProject Papua New GuineaPapua New Guinea articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move 7 October 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus, after extended time for discussion. There may be individualized cases suitable for separate discussion. BD2412 T 03:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– There is an inconsistency with how we disambiguate languages from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, with some using the country, some the island, some an adjective. Most language articles when disambiguated are disambiguated with the name of the country. See also Bati language (Indonesia) Buli language (Indonesia) Ende language (Indonesia) Kui language (Indonesia) and Awa language (Papua New Guinea), Elu language (Papua New Guinea), Kol language (Papua New Guinea), Lele language (Papua New Guinea), Maria language (Papua New Guinea), Sepa language (Papua New Guinea), Toura language (Papua New Guinea), Ura language (Papua New Guinea), Wom language (Papua New Guinea). This is also consistent with how the ISO 639-3 registry disambiguates the names when it does - see iso639-3:bpw as an example. The only exception is Mor language (Bomberai Peninsula) which iso639-3:moq disambiguates as such. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Ama speakers are very close to the border, and with consideration of extended histories pre-merge, the language probably straddles the border. Better to not brng in politics here, and to specify the island, not the nation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any actual RS that go by what you said? As I said, the registry itself uses it: - iso639-3:amm. Wikipedia should not use WP:OR, even in naming. Additionally, out of the 5 sources in the article, the 2 I can read, [1] and [2] use "Papua New Guinea". --Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In swapping the term for the geographical island New Guinea for the political national entity Papua New Guinea, you are proposing a subtle but serious shift away from history, observation, long term reality, towards recent politics. The local politics suffered tremendous turmoil from European nation's foreign policies in the 20th century. Placing the Ama speaking people under Papua New Guinea to the exclusion of nearby country is a political action. It may reflect accurately on current affairs, but does not reflect the history of the language. You point to very subtle terminology in government funded databases. These are biased to current politics. No, do not define indigenous language by best overlapping current nation states, it makes much more sense to do it by geography, which is the status quo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm actually not proposing any shift, but using what reliable sources use to classify these languages. I ask again, do you have RS to back your position? As both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply here. --Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the general idea of using the country as disambiguator if applicable (i.e. the speech area is clearly confined to a single country).

But: Oppose Mor language (Papuan) → Mor language (Bomberai Peninsula). Both Mor languages are spoken in Indonesia, and the geographical information (where do you want to move Mor language (Austronesian)?) is likely to be less understood than the "classificatory" disambiguation. –Austronesier (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: ISO639-3:mhz uses Mor (Mor Islands), which to be honest, is probably better. Both are Papuan languages and both are Austronesian languages, which means that using either "Papuan" or "Austronesian" is still ambiguous. --Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Uhm, no, Mor language (Austronesian) is an Austronesian language and Mor language (Papuan) is a Papuan language. While "Papuan" is an inexact cover term, Papuan and Austronesian languages are disjunct sets. I am still convinced that more readers are familiar with the concepts of "Papuan" and "Austronesian" than with the location of the Mor Islands. –Austronesier (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my mistake (not sure how I missed it). I also agree with you that the location of the Mor Islands isn't a very common feature (I had to check where it was). I'll just add that if we are disambiguating by language family, as in the case of the "Austronesian" one, another option could be to use "Trans–New Guinea" for the Bomberai Peninsula one. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Basically, "Trans–New Guinea" is a good disambiguator, since it even carries with it a geographical component immediately recognizable for our readers. The problem is, that the inclusion of Mor language (Papuan) within TNG is still disputed, AFACS. Its non-Austronesian nature however is undisputed, so "Papuan" might be a safer label here. @Sagotreespirit and Kwamikagami: What do you think? (← both editors have made most substantial edits in "Mor language (Papuan)", and in fact in most Papuan language articles). –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know it was disputed. If it is, it should probably be noted in its article and infobox as there isn't anything there about that. --Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to Mor language (Papuan). — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By family, it would be Austronenian vs 'Papuan'. The membership of TNG is quite disputed, and will likely change with further investigation, while the distinction between Austronesian and Papuan is fairly stable.

I don't see how using a geographic disambiguator is a problem. I suppose the WP might have made some philosophical judgement that languages should be identified by their country, but that breaks down when there is more than one language by a name in a country (as frequently happens when languages go by generic local labels) and when a language straddles a national border. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong with using one of the above styles as disambiguation, however the problem is that we are currently using various styles to do so and WP:AT does require us to be WP:CONSISTENT with how we do this. So then the question arises, which one should we use? Since reliable sources all use the country disambiguation, that makes the most sense as anything else will be WP:OR on our part. --Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY comes even before WP:CONSISTENT. I would say, for a reason. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't be consistent because the languages are not consistent. Some can be dab'd by country, some cannot. Some can be dab'd by family, some cannot. Some can be dab'd by island, some cannot. Anyway, a dab is not the title, it's parenthetical to the title. It should be whatever works. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, not sure the list is ordered (as there is no indication it is), but even if it were, claiming that the general audience of readers (and not experts in the field) recognize the name of a language family more than the name of a country, is quite a claim (which I disagree with with). Kwamikagami, I agree that some can't work, but those that can, should. It would be helpful if you can actually comment on the list above and list the ones that can't be disambiguated by the country because of conflicts with other language names. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in the context of Mor. The rest is case-by-case judgement. For most of the others, recognizability and consistency do not collide. Where they collide, I would opt for recognizability over consistency. –Austronesier (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

Oppose moves away from the New Guinea disambiguator. New Guinea is recognisable and concise. Some of the others should be considered on their merits. Andrewa (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The country isn't called New Guinea.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The island is called New Guinea. The island, unlike countries, is old. Languages, which date back to prehistory, are better connected to geographical locations, not modern politics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.