Talk:Whadjuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Latin species names

Shouldn't we put these in italics? Callophylla 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do John D. Croft 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ochre mined at Perth Station was exported to Uluru/Ayers Rock?!

Removed this. Daisy Bates is not a reliable source and she obviously wasn't award of old, large scale sites for high quality ochre, in non-Noongar country like Wilgie Mia (near Cue) and inbetween both Uluru and Perth (which has little, if any, ochre deposits at all). Grant | Talk 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Inclusion of Noongar names?

Relevant edits: [1][2][3] Original discussion, for reference: User talk:Mitch Ames#Removal of Noongar_names. Mitch Ames. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames and I have a disagreement regarding whether or not the inclusion of Noongar names for some of the plants and animals in the subsection on seasons is appropriate/within scope.

Other opinions on this would be helpful to resolve the impasse.

The following is copy pasted from Mitch Ames talk page. It is the discussion I started after Mitch removed the Noongar names. Apologies about the terrible formatting.

~

Hey there, just wanted to discuss your removal of the Noongar names from the article on the Whadjuk people.

I think including them is quite relevant and of interest to any reader interested in the subject. I don't see why a reader wouldn't be curious about this info if they've gone through the effort of finding a particular article on one of the Noongar people.

Your comments about the section on the seasons including irrelevant information regarding plants and animals is not considering the fact that these things are inextricably linked. The Noongar seasons are not conceptualised the same way the winter, spring, summer, autumn system is; they are noticed to start and end when particular patterns are seen among the plants and animals.

Happy to raise this for discussion somewhere else if you feel just as strongly. FropFrop (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 

   "information regarding plants and animals ... these things are inextricably linked" — The seasons are characterised/determined by the behaviour of plants and animals, but not by what the Noongar call those plants and animals. Thus the Noongar names for the plants/animals are irrelevant to the definitions for the seasons - the English name will do just as well, and more meaningfully for the Anglophone reader. The purpose of the section is to explain the seasons, in English (the language that Enlish Wikipedia is written in), not to teach other Noongar words.
   If you are asserting that the name of a particular season is derived from the Noongar name of a plant/animal – eg (hypothetically) that the word Birak gets its name from the Noongar words Bir meaning fruit and ak meaning easterly wind – then you would have a case, provided that the article said so explicitly, with references.
   Mitch Ames (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)



   No sorry, one of my points was that the names are likely of interest to a reader. My second point was in response to your edit comment that the section is about seasons and not plants/animals, when the determination of when the seasons begin and end is done, in part, by observing plants and animals.
   Regardless, we disagree. I'll make a post asking for others' input. FropFrop (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) FropFrop (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the names are likely of interest to a reader — Some Noongar words might be of interest to the reader, but that does not imply that they belong in this article. This article/section is not about those plants/animals, nor is it the place to teach Noongar words (with the common exception of the article's subject, or examples in an article about the language itself), nor an English/Noongar dictionary. We can describe the demarcation of the seasons in English and it will impart just as much information about the seasons as if we had done it in Noongar (or Latin). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is one of the most exemplary items of absurd futility that I have seen on any subject for a long time - https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Talk:Whadjuk - the actual likelihood of other editors to even know of the discussion occurring, like... 0 watchers/readers average in 90 days - why bother? One really wonders. JarrahTree 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: If there are reliable sources supporting inclusion of the names, they ought to be included. The fact that this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that people won't want to know the names in the Native language. For now, though, no reliable sources have been presented. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Voorts
I agree with you about the sources provided regarding the names. I'll edit the article to cite a reliable source. FropFrop (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether people want to know those Noongar words, or whether we have reliable sources, the issue is whether it is appropriate to include multiple Noongar words in an English language article, when the Noongar words themselves (as opposed to the things they describe) are not relevant to the topic, given that we are not describing the etymology of the seasons' names. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If RSes describe these animals and use their names in Noongar and describe their importance to the seasons, we should follow the sources and provide relevant, verifiable information to readers. There's no policy or guideline that bars including contextualized non-English words on en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the inclusion as irrelevant to the English description of the seasons - and apparently unrelated to the etymology of the Noongar words for the seasons, or even the definition of the seasons - and cluttering the text and make it harder to read. I've posted requests at

WT:WA for other editors' input. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

In the absence of any response from AWNB or WA, I've raised an RfC below. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Witjari

Lookming for sources of the use of Witjari I cannot find any significant reliable source that is not a

circlular source from Wikipedia. I suggest it gets removed if sufficient reliable sources can't be established. Gnangarra 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@Gnangarra According to AITSIS, it is likely a mistake by Tindale [[4]].
I've found a lot of 'alternative names' for different dialects and people that have only been used once many many decades ago. I've been removing them as I don't think it's of interest or really correct to say that they're alternative names. FropFrop (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this needs a citation to show its a significant alternative supported by reliable resources, So far I cant find anything, even a one off use doesnt warrant being highlighted in the lead Gnangarra 09:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Inclusion of Noongar words

Should Noongar (the language of the Whadjuk people) words be included in the description of seasonal activities? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the scope of the question is the Noongar words for plants, animals etc where there is an English word available. The Noongar names of the seasons are not disputed, because the section is about the seasons, and there are no corresponding English words. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • No. English language Wikipedia is written in English, and generally its purpose is to describe something in English, not to teach Noongar words. There are some obvious exceptions to that general rule - articles about the language itself, the Noongar words for the seasons themselves (or, in general, the direct subject of any article or section) - but the words in question (djiriji, yongka, ngawoo, etc), denoting plants or animals, do not meet those criteria. There is no suggestion that the Noongar words for the seasons are built from Noongar words for those plants/animals, so they are not part of the etymology. (cf. names of moieties, which are derived from other Noongar words.) Inserting irrelevant Noongar words breaks the flow of the text and adds no information about the topic (the seasons) itself. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Noongar is used as a collective noun for over a dozen tribal cultures, each with very distinctive dialects. At the same time Noongar is also used to refer to one language. The seasonal words in Mineng all differ from those in the seasonal vocabulary of the Whadjuk, for example. Until that resident ambiguity (which is basically generated by modern identitarian politics) is clarified, we should refrain from using generic items in the 'Noongar' collective vocabulary data base for individual peoples. If one has evidence that a 'Noongar' term was/is used within any one tribal tradition and its area (Whadjuk around the Swan), then that use is valid, as a Whadjuk term, not a Noongar term.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically on the issue @Nishidani: raises about dialects that isnt a true representation of reality, the dialects were heavily influenced by the person who recorded the words and how the spelt them. About 30 years ago a Council Noogar Elders was formed to address these and build a consistent spelling to allow for the teaching of Noogar in schools. The teaching in schools has been a longer process even now its not universally available to students. There has been a push by individuals to claim back some spellings or make new meaning Boola Bardip being just one very public case where bardip was once fiction its now been turned to non-fiction through the WA Museums choice of name. As more cultural connections occur there will be changes consistent with the community member that are engaged in the process making it all very fluid https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/teaching/curriculum-browser/languages/western-australian-aboriginal-languages-language-revival and to that the absorbtion of english into they noongar is spoken only complicate things. The incubator project was ha;ted because of these complex issues and the over keen people wrote solely in english due to those blurred boundaries. Gnangarra 04:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we're writing an encyclopedia article for an English-speaking audience, we're not trying to teach the language. – Teratix ₵ 12:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (bot-summoned): (1) It might be helpful to clarify what the exact words under consideration are -- from the above discussion I gather we are talking about plant and animal names in running text, not the names of the seasons. (2) To address the 3O in an earlier section, I don't think that simple deference to whether reliable sources include these translations gives us an easy out in this case, because we look to reliable sources for verification, not necessarily for guidance on appropriate content for an encyclopedia article (and also because such translations are
    WP:OR). For example, if our best sources were dense scholarly tomes that included translations as a matter of course, that wouldn't necessarily mean we should follow them. (3) IMO the positive-sum solution here would be to build more of a bridge between the Whadjuk names/concepts and the subject matter. I think an ideal article on this topic might go into sufficient depth on the specific cultural significance of these plants and animals that the Whadjuk/Noongar translations would not be out of place. But of course that depends on the availability of suitable sources and knowledgeable editors. (4) As to the article as it stands, I think Nishidani's point above (a word being Noongar does not mean it is Whadjuk) is likely conclusive. The currently-cited source does not mention Whadjuk. If there are no sources to say these are the Whadjuk names of these plants and animals, we shouldn't be presenting them that way. -- Visviva (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    clarify what the exact words under consideration — Done.
    we are talking about plant and animal names in running text, not the names of the seasons. — Correct.
    Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes / Response: I'll try and respond to common criticisms in this one reply, while tagging the users who have made the argument.
    • @Mitch Ames Regarding the inclusion of the Noongar words adding 'clutter'; Imo it doesn't and I've never had issues when an English and a non-English term are provided. Regardless, would commenting the Noongar terms be acceptable?
      @Mitch Ames @Teratix On whether or not the Noongar/Whadjuk words are irrelevant or not, as voorts said in the 3O: "There's no policy or guideline that bars including contextualized non-English words on en-wiki." Imo, the information is of interest and thus it should be included.
      @Nishidani @Visviva On whether or not these are Noongar or Whadjuk terms; the dicitonary used as a source was compiled by finding the commonly used words among the Noongar dialects. Words that were/are not common within each dialect were omitted. For example, the seasonal names are not included, likely as they are not the same within each dialect. This is why the source for the Whadjuk name for zamia palm nuts is not the Noongar dictionary; it has a different name depending on the dialect and so it is not included in the dictionary. I think it would be unnecessary to name each dialect when 'Noongar' refers to them all.
      FropFrop(talk) 03:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
200 years ago a dialect continuum or set of closely related languages existed in southwestern Australia. Virtually all of these languages were lost, and none were described in detail, except the 'Noongar' outlined by Gerhardt Laves in the 1930s. Of the 15-30,000 people who self-identify with a Noongar background, less than 250 use some forms of the language(s)/dialects in their everyday life ('Most reports suggest that, with the exception of a few individuals, only a small proportion of the resources of the language are in everyday use.' John Henderson 2013 p.58). The efforts to revive 'Noongar' consist of, as you state, making a selection from the surviving lexica to establish a new Noongar vernacular, a composite tongue,very much in the way modern Hebrew was invented. So, for the Wudjari Noongar the word for mother was kun, for the Whadjuk it was jukan, for the Bibulman it was nungun, for the Njakinjaki it was knockan; for the Mineng it was, variously, taking into account subdialect variations,nginung, ngyank, nonk; For the Koreng it was ngangk ; for the Kaniyang it was nongan; for the Amangu it was agootha . For the Kaniyang children were gootang-boola; the Njakinjaki, by contrast, referred to a baby as a • koolongnop, for the Koreng, nawp etc.etc. Since the aborigines were, certainly linguistically, far more sophisticated than invading whites, they were often bi- and trilingual, and had no trouble with this marked regional variation in vernaculars. The modern Noongar now taught is more a matter of a simplified artificial grammatical reduction of what little is known of the complex grammars of each of these, together with a word-list for 'things' constituted by choosing one term out of this polyphonic vernacular continuum to represent the appropriate new Noongar standard vocabulary. The result is an engineered new language, that draws on a dozen old languages which are no longer spoken, and until the new language manages to get a wider foothold in Noongar communities, it cannot be said to be anything more than a cultural programme promoted to recreate some semblance of the world whites destroyed.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 15-30,000 people who self-identify with a Noongar background, less than 250 use some forms of the language(s)/dialects in their everyday life I'm not disputing that the language has been greatly impacted by colonisation, however that doesn't mean we can't know the word used to refer to specific things.
...making a selection from the surviving lexica to establish a new Noongar vernacular, a composite tongue,very much in the way modern Hebrew was invented. Yes, Neo-Noongar is a thing. However, that doesn't mean we can't know some of the words used to refer to specific things before colonisation, nor does it mean that the different dialects didn't share more commonalities than differences. Hence the Noongar Dictionary not including a lot of content.
...for the Whadjuk [the word for mother] was jukan... I'm not so sure about that. The only use of 'jukan' to mean that was in Edward M Curr's 'The Australian Race' which I'd argue is far less reliable than the modern efforts to reconstruct a (sadly shallow) Noongar by finding the commonalities of the dialects. Linguists who have gone over the material, and Noongar Elders who were 'lucky' enough to learn their language, don't seem to be in disagreement about this.
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I'm pretty certain 'jukan' is an error, or at least (like Gnangarra mentioned) different people recorded what they heard in inconsistent manners and so it differs greatly in spelling. For example, Curr's contact in the 'York District' (east of Perth) gives a wordlist on page 340 for the Whadjuk people, with 'jukan' included. However, an unnamed Indigenous people in the Perth area (who we now know to be the Whadjuk people) are said to have used 'gnungan' to mean mother, found on page 332. Additionally, 'j' is now rarely used as the first letter in Noongar, instead 'dj' is more common, and after looking I found in the Noongar Dictionary 'djookin', with the given meaning of cousin and/or sister, found on page 7, along with 'djook', 'djookanka', 'djookinyan'. So I think it more likely that there was some miscommunication when they asked what the word for 'woman' was and they instead got the word for cousin/sister.
Considering that we know that the Noongar dialects were mutually intelligible, that they can be roughly divided into three main dialect clusters, and that everything I've read on the subject often provides different words used among the dialects, I don't see why modern secondary material can't be used as a source for a Noongar/Whadjuk term. Additionally, per
WP:SECONDARY
, I'd argue that work such as Curr's shouldn't be used in this context.
```` FropFrop (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Having said that, were I a dictator I would impose on children's curriculum a requirement of basic knowledge of the Aboriginal language - by which I mean - learning few hundred common terms - spoken in the area where everyt school is located). Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:COMMENTing them would be. How will those comments help the editors? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, information ought only be added if it adds value in that context. There is nothing to indicate that the reader would be any better informed about the Noongar seasons, or what the Whadjuk do in each season, by knowing the Noongar words for specific plants/animals etc. The seasonal characterisations and the activities therein - and the reader's understanding of those characterisations and activities - are exactly the same whether described in English, Noongar or Afrikaans (were someone to develop the af.wikipedia article). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies, I meant to ask if footnoting them would be acceptable. For example, perhaps like this[Whadjuk 1], or like this.[nys 1]
@Teratix @Endwise Tagging you both as my response below is also a response to both of you.
..information ought only be added if it adds value in that context. While in general I agree, this is quite a niche subject area, where someone interested in the subject matter is likely going to be interested in also knowing the Noongar/Whadjuk terms. Someone reading the section on the seasons, is more than likely reading the article because they are interested in the broader subject matter, not because they specifically want to know the seasonal habits of the Whadjuk people before colonisation. By providing this information, it more than likely increases the value of the article for the reader. I think that this is a situation where the principle '
WP:NOTADICTIONARY
counts here.
  1. ^ Kaya
  1. ^ Kaya
```` FropFrop (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response is basically repeating the argument you've already made to me about reader interest. It hasn't acknowledged, let alone addressed my objections that it's common practice not to include even the most interesting things if they don't belong in an English-language encyclopedia. – Teratix ₵ 10:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should simply include everything of interest.
In
WP:SCOPE, it says ...it should include those facts that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance.., imo the terms meet this requirement. FropFrop (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That appears to be a quote from
WP:SCOPE. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The key word in that quote is significance, not interest. The Noongar words are not significant in this context. They are not part of the etymology of the seasons' names. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, that essay (WP:INCLUDE) is vague, poorly written, at times non-compliant with established policies and guidelines, and does not appear to have received much attention or support from the broader community.
That quote is a case in point. Like "reader interest", "significance" is too vague a criterion to appeal to when there is a dispute over whether particular material should be included. And we routinely omit facts that could be said to be of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance if they aren't compatible with our purpose as an encyclopedia.
For example, we do not include significant facts if they cannot be verified by reliable sources, if they are the product of an editor's original research, or, crucially, if they would make the article into
we use foreign terms sparingly. Mitch has correctly outlined circumstances where using Noongar terms would align with our purpose — this case doesn't fall under them. – Teratix ₵ 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
if footnoting them would be acceptable — Those examples may actually increase the amount of screen space taken! But even if if you limit the label to single letter[a] it is still distracting. In fact it introduces another problem - now I have to move the mouse to hover over the label to find out what it says,[b] to then discover that it does not explain anything. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I think they should be included in brackets, like what it shows in
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms
;
Gustav I of Sweden liked to breakfast on crispbread
(knäckebröd) open sandwiches with toppings such as messmör (butter made from goat's milk), ham, and vegetables. - Would you argue for this style guide to be changed?
What about Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly, where its opening sentence is: It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information
I really don't see the issue regarding formatting, many articles include information like this.
That is pure speculation on your part - Considering that this information was put in by an editor, and that myself and two others either want the information included or do not think that including it is an issue; no I don't think this is speculation but has been demonstrated to be true. FropFrop (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly — that is only an essay, which refers to the guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Foreign terms, which says (with my emphasis here) "Non-English terms should be used sparingly ... words that are not current in English" - eg the names of the seasons, but not the words for animals/plants. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the following:
I think it reasonable to understand that 'sparingly' is either not being understood in a narrow of a sense as you, or that many wikipedians do not agree (including those who wrote much of the style guide and related essays).
Also, considering that many articles provide both an English and a non-English translation when the topic's context does not originate from an English speaking one, I do not think that it is outside of the generally accepted style to provide translations. For example:
  • In
    French Cuisine#Foods and ingredients
    .
  • In Iroquois#Dress there is a paragraph which gives the English and the Iroquois name for different clothing items worn in the 19th century. There are other examples throughout the article.
  • In Template talk:Lang#Inline translations there is a discussion as to how best provide translated words inline.
  • Throughout Perestroika.
  • Buddhism provides many terms along with the original Sanskrit.
FropFrop (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is speculation but has been demonstrated to be true — My assertion of "pure speculation" (13:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)) was in response to your assertion that "someone interested in the subject matter is likely going to be interested in also knowing the Noongar/Whadjuk terms" (10:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)). The fact that you inserted the Noongar words and two other editors do not object does not demonstrate that "someone [else] ... is likely going to be interested". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not insert them, another editor did. I and another editor argued for them to be maintained, a third said that there was nothing against keeping them. So that's three people who thought it of interest (or for whatever reason that it should be included), with a fourth not taking issue.
What would indicate to you that it is of interest to a general reader?
FropFrop (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
someone interested in the subject matter is likely going to be interested in also knowing the Noongar/Whadjuk terms — That is pure speculation on your part. English Wikipedia has many articles about people and places for whom/which English is not the native language; is there any evidence to suggest that people who read about Paris or Napoleon want to learn some random French words (other than those directly related to the article subject)?
Someone reading the section on the seasons, is more than likely reading the article because they are interested in the broader subject matter — Again, speculation. But even so, this is why we have categories, "See also" sections, navigation boxes, wiki-links etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDICTIONARY is pretty clear we're not out to be a language guide. There are exceptions, which Mitch has outlined, but this particular case doesn't fall under them. – Teratix ₵ 04:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Teratix I don't see how that applies here. The Whadjuk names are of potential interest to a reader and so they should be included, I don't see how them not being English words stops that. I agree that using Wikipedia as a dictionary should not be done. FropFrop (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't exactly falsify the claim something is of "potential interest" to "a reader" – this is such a broad statement it could be considered true if, say, one reader out of the thousands who view this article had some non-zero level of interest in the terms. However, I will say we regularly omit things that could be considered interesting for readers if they don't align with Wikipedia's purpose as an English-language encyclopedia rather than another type of publication. If you read NOTDICTIONARY, you will see among the things Wikipedia is not is a guide to language usage. So, although we have encyclopedia articles on languages, these articles are still written in English and are focused on describing information about the language to English speakers, not on teaching the language. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • include the line between Whadjuk/Noongar is extremely blurred as is the line between English/Noongar and more words are being taken up by South-west Australian English every day. Obviously as there are no equilivent english words nor concept comparable to the six seasons it makes sense to keep these. Defining the six season thats the next issue Noongar seasons are not fixed to the position of the sun(calander), they adjust according to observational changes in the environment and those are changing with the shifting climate. There is significant encyclopedic value by including words, its important that we use common sense rather than a blanket no to any words. Gnangarra 04:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gnangarra, I don't think what this RfC is about. As the RfC statement mentions, it's about whether all the mentions of plants/animals/etc should also have a Noongar translation, not the seasons. See for example this edit. Endwise (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... extremely blurred ... is the line between English/Noongar and more words are being taken up by South-west Australian English every day — That may be true, but I do not think it is relevant here. We are not debating the use of
    gilgies is a good example of a Noongar word that has been adopted into English and thus can be used without the need for a "translation".) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    its not a boomerang thats word is from the east, it's a kylie Gnangarra 13:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not a boomerang — OK, my mistake, but my point still stands; there's a big difference between using quokka or gilgie, vs using djiriji, yongka, ngawoo. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sections where damn near every noun is provided a translation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, just as our article on France should not have French translations of common words everywhere. This is even ignoring the issues Nishidani mentioned surrounding the specific language we're talking about here. Endwise (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Notes

  1. ^ like this
  2. ^ The existing explanatory notes in the article are useful
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whadjuk&oldid=1219164522"