User talk:Zarbat

You should not have moved the Aboriginal Australian Art to Indigenous Australian art WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A DISCUSSION on the page. Australian Aboriignal Art is better known colloquially as the art movement. It is rarely referred to "Indigenous Australian Art". Indigenous Australians is better known for the group of people and is more acceptable.

I protest at your unilateral movement without discussion. I will be alerting your unilateral movement to the mods.

Outside comment

Hi, I'm an administrator acting in response to a post at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation. I see you've taken Wikipedia:Be bold to heart. There's some opposition to at least one of the changes you've made so I suggest toning down your approach. It's fine to rush forward with title changes on article names that are misspelled or improperly capitalized or have obvious problems like that. Before you implement the sort of change you're doing, it's good manners to post to the talk page first. Propose the change and offer some reasons for it - such as more Google results for your version or a quote from a notable scholar. As this example shows, a change that seems natural and reasonable to one editor might not go over well. Of course there are other times when the idea is welcome. Best wishes and welcome to Wikipedia. Durova 13:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginals

Shockingly, Wikipedia doesn't always follow majority usage (note the article caron, where users of a minority field [typography] have overruled the users of a majority field [linguistics] who wished to move it to it's natural name háček). And yes, I am suggesting that, thank you for bringing my attention to that article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-page move

Hi, There seems to be a consensus to call Indigenous Australians "Indigenous Australians", as opposed to "Aboriginal Australians". The corresponding adjective would be "Indigenous Australian". I've tried moving some of the articles using the adjective "Aboriginal" but there seem to be too many of them. A list of articles that need to be moved can be found here. Is there a quick way to setup a poll to move these pages? Is a poll even necessary? (It appears a good majority would support the move.) Any help would be appreciated. Zarbat 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zarbat. I've created a move request and opened a poll for those changes (see Talk:Australian_Aboriginal_mythology#Requested_move). It's always better to be safe and gather consensus before mass moving pages. :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Zarbat 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The request is listed on the 11/11/06 Requested Moves section. An admin should make the decision in a little over a week, judging by the backlog. It looks like most of the places that people who are interested in the move are likely to visit have had notices posted on them. Just to make sure, you could make a generic notice and put it on the talk page of all of the articles involved. Other than that, it is just a matter of time, barring objections. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal re IpoA eems reasonable to me. Native Americans (a disambig page) seems to be the US equivalent to our Indigenous Australians, and lists alternatives such as the above. Note Canada has "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" but because none actually have the ascribed name "Aboriginal" as ours do, it *is* a generic there. Indigenous peoples of Europe also appears to work although is a very short article. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 05:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)