Talk:Čabranka dialect

title
you referenced an article by Kapović (2017) that states (p. 618):

"Things are only slightly more complex in the case of the zapadnogoranski (Western Gorski kotar) dialect (near to towns such as Delnice and Čabar), which is identified as Kajkavian due to its location and national self-identification of its speakers, although it would structurally and historically, due to a recent migration (Finka 1974: 32; Lončarić 1996: 54), rather be a Slovene dialect (i. e. a dialect that is in structural accord with the dialects we today call “Slovene” and which are mostly spoken in present-day Slovenia) – cf. also Kapović 2015: 45101."

The entire work doesn't mention the term "Čabranka", so surely you should actually explain this instead of just using this terse yet convoluted construct of Slovene dialect, though not all speakers self-identify as speaking Slovene. This is a violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:V. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Term 'Čabranka dialect' was coined by Januška Gostenčnik in 2018 in Gostenčnik (2018, p. 44), so there would be no way Kapović could mention that name in 2017 article. Before that, it was merged under the name 'Kostel dialect' or 'Western Kostel microdialects' (Slovene zahodni kostelski govori). And for the line about speakers' identification, how about Dialect originates from Alpine Slavic, a predecessor of nowadays Slovene, but speakers living in Croatia self-identify themselves as speaking Croatian.? And I don't see why the initial quote would violate WP:W. Source is given, is in English, is available on the Internet, and anyone can check that indeed, people living on the Croatian side of the border do not self-identify as speaking Slovene or being of Slovene origin. I agree that the sentence was written too vaguely and I'm sorry for that. I meant to include a more in-depth explanation about that later, but I left it out. Garygo golob (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, so that first sentence is immediately a red flag, because this is an encyclopedia, so it's fundamental that it doesn't prescribe, rather it should describe. If the state of science on this topic is in such flux that the name of the term is so recent that it doesn't even appear in the preponderance of reliable sources about it, then it's critical that the article states so clearly. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, is the second sentence all right or does it have to be altered? Garygo golob (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)