Talk:Austronesian

Primary topic?

The redirect Austronesian has in its history oscillated between targeting Austronesian languages and Austronesian peoples, but it was recently turned into a dab page, then a few days later turned back into a redirect again. In the meantime, the several hundred incoming links were fixed (by Rodw, if I'm not mistaken), and if I remember correctly, their intended targets were equally split between the languages and the peoples. Is the language family the primary topic here? What do you think, Austronesier? – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: While I have a personal strong preference to restrict the use of the term "Austronesian" as much as possible to the language family (my own username is actually a solipsistic joke since it evokes a concept (an "Austronesian individual") that I do not subscribe to), and tend to read "Austronesian peoples" as "Austronesian-speaking peoples", "Austronesian arts" as "Arts of the Austronesian-speaking peoples" etc., I am aware that the term "Austronesian" has developed a certain life of its own which is visible in many reliable sources. But the primary meaning, as in the case of "Indo-European", "Bantu" etc., is the linguistic concept. So the construct that involves a redirect of Austronesian to Austronesian languages, with a hatnote pointing to this dab, best reflects this hierarchy of topics. But I don't feel strongly about this, and am just as fine with the version introduced by Obsidian Soul. –Austronesier (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an Austronesian (Austronesian-speaking?) person myself, I honestly feel robbed every time our culture is simply relegated to being a "linguistic connection." As if none of the genetics and the clearly transmitted material culture matters. It has resulted in our virtual invisibility on topics like human migration, sailing technologies, cultigens, etc. Every time there is emphasis that the term is linguistic, it implies that no other connections exist between Austronesian peoples (or that such connections are negligible); that all that ties us together is that we speak Austronesian languages. Which is simply not true as the vast amount of scientific literature in other disciplines can attest.

Regardless of my own personal feelings, I acknowledge that the term is originally for the language family, but its usage has gone further than linguistics in reliable sources, hence there should be a disambiguation.

I would also prefer if it redirects to the dab page directly, since as you pointed out, the incoming links are just as likely to refer to the peoples as they would to the language family. The goal of disambiguations is ease of navigation. WP:DPT explicitly points out that the origin of the name and its principal relevance to a specific group of people (in this case, linguists) are not grounds for choosing a primary topic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also no, I wouldn't fight on it. LOL. Whichever way this ends up is fine. I honestly didn't even realize I was recreating the dab for Austronesian. I was merely following a link for Austronesian that led to the Austronesian languages page when it shouldn't have. And I thought "hey, this should be disambiguated", without realizing I did the same thing almost 8 years ago. If anything, it just demonstrates that the term does not, in fact, have a primary topic.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the perspective of our readers who look up for the topic "Austronesian", probably without having a notion beforehand whether it is a linguistic, cultural (etc.) term, but simply because they have seen the adjective "Austronesian" in some context or other, and now want to know what it is. Primary topic means: what will people most likely be looking for? Sometimes it's clearly seasonal: in 2016/2017 when ISEA Austronesians felt the urge to massively appropriate Polynesian culture, I would have clearly answered, most likely people are looking for Austronesian peoples. These days, well, page views are almost even, with a c. 10% lead of Austronesian peoples over Austronesian languages—which speaks for a dab without primary topic.

@Uanfala: Will Austronesian (disambiguation) → Austronesian require a technical request? –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If both of you agree, as you seem to do, then you can just ask for it at WP:RMT. Just link to this discussion here. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]