Talk:Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. JarrahTree initially opposed the porposal but did not oppose after discussion on FropFrop's talk page.

FropFrop (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Proposal to merge Aboriginal groupings of Western Australia with Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia.

I would argue that (at least with the info in the article currently) the article on Aboriginal groupings of Western Australia does not contain enough information to warrant its own article. As kinship groups are an aspect of cultural practice, I therefore propose to merge it into this article, Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia.

The articles in of themselves need significant improvement. I'd be happy to start working on that if the proposed merger takes place.

I think that the merged article should be edited to:

- Give a general overview of the culture of the Aboriginal peoples of WA, while recognising that this a rather artificial/trivial grouping.

- Direct to the articles on specific people or cultural groups when referenced, as the boundaries of WA often do not completely contain them. For example, see the land of the Ngaanyatjarra cultural group or the Nakako people.

WikiProject Western Australia

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia FropFrop (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the two articles need merging - nor do I understand the need to have the items bolded here in the article. The kinship of western australian first nations people could be developed much more than is currently found - it can be thought of as a major component of understanding dynamics of groups internally and with other groups - I do not think it (the process of understanding the effects of kinship and how it affects language and many other aspects of life) can be dismissed simply as an aspect of cultural practice.

The article that has the broader title is valuable in that an early version of the aboriginal timeline and detailed history of interactions with europeans was long ago very largely reduced in size and content - the need for a centralised reference point that in turn links to or refers to the range of languages, groupings and kinship systems are better separate than creating an omnibus article. JarrahTree 09:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic sorry.

Many different aspects of a given culture will impact other aspects of its culture and its relations to other groups. The kinship system of a given culture is therefore still an aspect of that culture's culture. I do not think it dismissive to describe kinship systems as an aspect of culture. See Kinship being contained within cultural/social anthropology.

I'm sure if I'm understanding what you meant in your second paragraph sorry.

In any case, while creating an omnibus article is useful, that purpose should be met by the article on Australian Aboriginal kinship. The border's of WA have no bearing on the geographical regions of a given cultural group or people.

Thus it makes far more sense to have Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia be a short article that links to other articles with greater geographical focus. Otherwise, should we also make articles for the kinship groups found in the Northern Territory? The WA and NT articles would have serious overlap. As it is right now, WA seems to be the only state with its own article on kinship. FropFrop (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2023 (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.

Invalid

This merge proposal is in my understanding of what wikipedia is about - not valid, as there is simply a discussion between two editors - that to me is not what I would consider adequate - many XFD situations simply do not move when it is between 2 editors only. JarrahTree 07:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I tried my best to follow the merge norms.

According to Wikipedia:Merging:

Notifying users who are involved in the articles is optional; "You may optionally notify involved users (e.g. contributors to the source and destination pages), who might not be watchlisting them." The articles haven't been seriously worked on in years and are in serious need of updating so I didn't think that there was anyone involved.

I didn't think it would be problematic to merge it myself considering that the merge proposal has been up since October last year and no one has chimed in; "Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge."

Additionally, I think it silly to have to ask permission to try and improve articles which no one else cares about when I'm advised to be bold.

I'm going to go ahead with the merge as I think this is fairly silly. Happy to notify folks if you know who would like to have input.

FropFrop (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)