Talk:Pahang Malays

Move

Hi all. I'm suggesting to move this page to Pahangite Malay people in order to clearly distinguish it from Pahang Malay dialect and also to standardize the title with other existing articles of sub-Malay people such as Terengganuan Malay people, Perakian Malay people, Kedahan Malay people, Kelantanese Malay people and etc. Unfortunately the Pahangite Malay people page has already been created as a redirect to Malays (ethnic group) page. So I'm thinking of moving the contents of this page to Pahangite Malay people page and make this page as a redirect to Pahangite Malay people page. If there is no objection to this, then I'll move it in 5 days. Thank you. Jeblat (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Pahangite Malay people" is not a common name. A quick google search only gives 6 results for "Pahangite Malay people" compared to "Pahang Malays" that give 4,310 results. Just don't move the page.(Ø:G (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

I hope to have a proper discussion regarding the demonym for the people of Pahang, and in this case the native Malay people of Pahang precisely. What's much popular in Google search does not amount to what is necessarily right or wrong. Part of my reasoning to the change of the title is also due to the similarity of the Pahang Malays and the Pahang Malay article's title that is being differentiated by only an "s". In that I hope the title of the 2 different topics should be clear and concise to better distinguish from one another. Jeblat (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You can move "Pahang Malay" to "Pahang Malay language" to differentiate them better. "Pahangite" is certainly uncommon demonym for people of Pahang even in the older English texts like History of Pahang by Linehan. If google web search is not reliable enough, google books search can be used which concentrates more on reliable scholarly sources. Still, the result shows "pahang malays" as a more common term.(Ø:G (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC))

The term "Pahangite" also does appear in older texts such as the "Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1881), Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Issues 7-12, University of Michigan" or the "Malaya. Division of Agriculture, Malaya. Dept. of Agriculture, Straits Settlements. Dept. of Agriculture (1925), The Malayan Agricultural Journal, Volume 12, Department of Agriculture{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)". As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the naming is intended for a clear, concise and perhaps even an accurate distinguishable term to differentiate the 2 articles- people group from language. Neither did I mention anywhere or to point out that the term "Pahang Malays" is entirely wrong. As to your suggestion of moving "Pahang Malay" to "Pahang Malay language" may not be viable. Does that mean the rest of other Malay based language articles should follow suit? If you're suggesting that so, then it's best that to seek a consensus among other editors/contributors to agree on the movement on all Malay based language articles. Therefore in my opinion it's more realistic to move the "Pahang Malays" page to "Pahangite Malay people" for specificity as it also does conform to the uniformity of the rest of the related Malaysian Malay people subjects that are currently exist. Jeblat (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The term Pahangite did appear in some books but did not specifically referred to Malay inhabitants of Pahang. Remember there are also non-Malay inhabitants of Pahang, in particular the Orang Asli. Even some scholars did use 'Pahangite' as demonym, it is still an uncommon name with 43 results in google books compared to 450 results for 'Pahang people'. This is not about wrong or not, this more on what more common name is used as per required by Wikipedia. I never mentioned that 'Pahangite Malay people' is wrong either. The suggestion of moving "Pahang Malay" to "Pahang Malay language" should be viable. Yes, it does mean that the rest of other Malayan language articles should follow suit, because all other language articles, German language, English language, Irish language, to name a few, have been using the same format for ages.

Mind that the current article Malaysian Chinese 'does not conform to the uniformity of the rest of the related' Chinese articles as well; Chinese Americans, Chinese Canadians, Chinese Brazilians, Chinese Peruvians, but for the sake of commonly used name, the title was retained.(Ø:G (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC))

Actually the context of those articles were referring to the Pahangite Malays by making a comparison to the Malay people of other states. If you're assuming that the article is making a comparison of all ethnicity in Pahang to the Malays of other states, then it must be a very flawed and odd comparison to make. I hope you're not confused by making comparison with the language based articles too. If you're referring to the format of German language, English language and Irish language articles, then the comparison should be with the Malay language article. In this case, I was referring to Malay language based articles earlier. An appropriate comparison should be for example the English language such as Southern American English, African American Vernacular English or Australian English, etc. Thus the question of the viability of moving all sub-language articles to the "... language" format is very much unlikely. Yes, I do agree articles like Malaysian Chinese, Chinese Americans, Chinese Canadians, Chinese Brazilians, Chinese Peruvians can be very tacky. With the vast articles that exist in Wikipedia, it's almost impossible to keep track of every single one of them. Therefore nothing is perfect here and it depends on (probably) boring nerds like us to straighten some stuff out. The American Chinese even makes a distinction between articles Chinese American and American-born Chinese. But at least there is no Chinese American and Chinese Americans or Chinese Brazilian and Chinese Brazilians or Chinese Peruvian and Chinese Peruvians that leads to two different articles of the people and their language; unlike Pahang Malays and Pahang Malay articles that are differentiated by only an "s". Culturally and linguistically, the native Malays of Pahang are a unique group of people of their own just as the rest of the Malay people of other states in Malaysia. I'm suggesting to at least have the format of the Pahang Malays to include "... people" in it. Jeblat (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that you have changed Pahang Malay to Pahang Malay language. Please refer to my previous post above on language. What I meant was the change for Pahang Malays to Pahang Malay people. If Pahangite Malay is unacceptable, adding "... people" is unacceptable too? Jeblat (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pahang Malay is not the "sub-language" of Malay. Both Malay and Pahang Malay are the sub-languages of Malayan languages. The main ethnic group article, Malays (ethnic group), itself is without "...people". (Ø:G (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

Yes, more accurately Pahang Malay is a dialect of the Malay language. Besides Malays (ethnic group) or Macedonians (ethnic group), there are also other formats like Marabou (ethnicity) or many more redirects from "... (ethnic)" to "... people" articles. Just as what you've mentioned earlier for the sake of what's more "common term", the "... people" format is obviously common. Jeblat (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The current 'Malay language' is a Malacca-Johor dialect which elevated into national language in Southeast Asia. Pahang Malay is certainly not based on this dialect which is quite historically recent. There are Serbs, Koreans, Russians, German, Filipinos article, although i do believe that we should add 'people' to the current Malays (ethnic group) article . Furthermore, as a sub group, the article should follow commonly used format for sub group, which is without the 'people'. Still, Pahang Malays is the common term.(Ø:G (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

You mentioned previously that Pahang Malay is not a sub-language, but then said that "as a sub group"? Even so those articles that you've mentioned Serbs, Koreans, Russians, German, Filipinos have titles that are clearly distinct from their language articles. As of this moment; taking into account of the other existing Malay based language articles, it is much appropriate to change the title of this article to "Pahang Malay people". In this case, the title "Pahang Malay people" is not in conflict with the idea of common or uncommon, but a clearly distinct and concise rather than something that is only differentiated by an "s". -Jeblat (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pahang Malays are sub-group of Malay people, but their language is not a sub of modern 'Malay language' (Melaka-Johor dialect), and so other eastern languages like Terengganu Malay and Kelantan Malay. Thats why, it makes sense to rename Pahang Malay article to 'Pahang Malay language', just like many other language articles.(Ø:G (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

I do not see it as an issue with the current language based articles. Pahang Malay is not a sub-language of the standard Malay language but all of them still comes under Malayan languages, which not only extends beyond geographical areas but also political borders. But the point at hand now is to distinguish Pahang Malays article from the Pahang Malay article, which is only being differentiated by an "s". Therefore I suggest that the title of Pahang Malays to be changed to Pahang Malay people or Pahang Malay (ethnic group) or a much lesser used format, Pahang Malay (ethnic). Rather than making a huge overhaul changes to all the language based articles, a change to the current Pahang Malays article is much more appropriate. This would also be of great help to give way to future or futher expansion of articles should there be any, for example, "Pahang Malay architecture", "Pahang Malay mythology", "Pahang Malay ceremony", etc. Jeblat (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you can proceed with "Pahang Malay people". I have no more objection. I am wasting too much time with this trivial matter. (Ø:G (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC))

Changes made! Jeblat (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirectory about Cappadocian Greek cuisine

When I look up something on Cappadocian Greeks this apparently comes up saying it's a redirect for "Cappadocian Greek cuisine", but it has virtually nothing to do with the Cappadocian Greeks or their culture at all. Is this supposed to be a mistake? Tzauarner (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)