Talk:Akawaio people

Requested move 10 January 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

– The page views suggest there is no primary topic. Apart from the fish genus (348 views last year), there are two topics with the name: the people (4,394 views) and the language. To get a corresponding figure for the pageviews of the language, we could start with the observation that the Akawaio language is currently treated jointly with Patamona language in a single article called Kapóng language. Considering that the two constituent topics appear to be of equal significance (the pageviews of Patamona people are roughly equal to those for Akawaio), one can infer that around half of the 7,819 views of that article could be accounted for by the Akawaio language. This means a split of 51% – 45% – 4%, which clearly indicates absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Akawaio → Akawaio people
 * Akawaio (disambiguation) → Akawaio
 * Oppose. Of topics named "Akawaio", the people receive |Akawaio_people|Akawaio_language|Akawaio_penak 78% of the traffic. It's hard to know how many people visit Kapóng language looking for the Akawaio variety (other than through the Akawaio language redirect, which gets 8% of the traffic) as the Akawaio are not the only speakers of that language, and at any rate the article is not titled "Akawaio".--Cúchullain t/ c 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your link is for Aguaruna, not Akawaio. Also, you can't compare views for articles with views for redirects, as the difference in traffic they receive is usually of an order of magnitude. You can use the Redirect views to make the sort of broad comparisons between topics that we're both aiming to do here. I'd also recommend having a look at Pageviews and primary topics. And yes, the language article isn't titled "Akawaio", but roughly half of its topical extent covers the Akawaio language. What the actual title happens to be is beside the point, as long as readers will type "Akawaio" looking for information on that language. – Uanfala (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the link.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In doing a lot of work on Guyana, I am always mis-judging peoples vs. language if it's not patently obvious when I'm making wiki-links or searching. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm solely responsible for any recent rise in page views. I find a terrific amount of misnaming and misspellings for indigenous groups on the Guyana side, even within the same publication, so I'd be cautious to use pageviews because at least in my case, they come from confusion rather than certainty. Here's an editorial of someone self-identifying as "Kapong" that even elaborates on all the plethora of names. Estheim (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Uanfala's rationale. The current setup risks bad incoming links. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. And this is a common problem, of a people and a language group sharing the same name. In this situation it is natural for some contributors to just assume that the article at the base name is the language, if that is their area of interest, and others that it is the people. And when they mislink they get no warning. But if the DAB is at the base name these mislinkings will be identified and corrected. Perhaps we should have a naming convention on this, but meantime on the basis of IAR and other arguments above we should fix this one. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Naming conventions (languages): "If no primary topic exists, a disambiguation page containing links to both articles (and other ambiguous articles) should be created at the base name". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.