Kunma is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
@CentreLeftRight:Kunma is a settlement in Wa SAD, and is likely to be the birth place of Bao Youxiang mentioned in this article, who was definitely not from Kachin State. And AFAIK there's no Kachin village with very significant Wa population. Unfortunately, my attempts to turn Kunma into a disambiguation page in accordance with MOS:DABRL has been reverted by Bkonrad (talk·contribs) two times with absolutely no reason given.
However, I now highly doubt the existance of a village named "Kuma" in Kachin State. Both Wikipedia coord and Geonames pointed "Kuma" to a forest NW of the village of Gundauyang (seemed to be inhabited bu Lachit/Zaiwa/Dai peoples). Do you have any source of a "Kuma" settlement in Kachin? If not I think probably it's easier to move this article to Kunma over the confusing redirect page and turn it into a page about the correct Kunma, while leave Wikidata Q25103690 for a dubious Kachin village "Kuma" with no enwiki link. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if we decide to do that make sure leave Kuma, Myanmar a red link when moving, because essentially all sources that make this article notable points to "the other Kunma" and what we do essentially is to delete this article and start a new article with infomation mistakenly labelled on this article. There is a chance that Kuma is a different name of Gundauyang that exists but simply doesn't meet notability criteria. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection if you want to rework or move the article to reflect reliable sources (which are sparse for Myanmar). But there is no reason to create a disambiguation page that links to only one existing article. That's simply not what disambiguation pages are for. older ≠ wiser03:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@older ≠ wiser: Wikipedia MOS requires at least one blue link and all red links meet MOS:DABRL. That's it. If you requires more you should feel free to discuss to change the policy yet otherwise it would be inappropriate to revert twice leaving no reason, and I have no idea why you reverted my note on WP:WTAF. I also don't agree on the idea that reliable sources are "sparse" for Myanmar, as both Burmese and Chinese Wikipedia have articles about Kunma and both have policy requiring reliable sources - it is the English Wikipedia rather than Myanmar that is disconnected with the world. So I would stay more open-minded and say there might not be a lot of English reliable sources:) --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, a bare red link is not enough. Each entry must have a navigable blue link. That is the core of disambiguation policy. And your edit to WP:WTAF did not have any basis whatsoever in policy or guidelines and there was no discussion establishing support for such a position. My comment about the availability of reliable sources is simple observation. Relative to other countries, sources for local details in Myanmar are by comparison rather sparse. older ≠ wiser10:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing that you are still imposing that personal essay over the official manual of style. And thanks for your "simple observation" which simply wasn't true, as at least five years ago many articles from reliable media in Hong Kong as well as in mainland China had talked extensively about a lot of Burmese settlements - this is still outside Myanmar. Burmese and Shan documents in Myanmar are supposed to be way more extensively covering their their settlements. That you cannot find one doesn't mean they're sparse. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really are in need of some cluefulness. The official manual of style simply does not support what you seem to think. You are the one who brought that personal essay into the matter. If reliable sources for localities in Myanmar are so plentiful, then please, by all means provide some sources. No one is stopping you. Not sure why you're getting bent out of shape when I point out the paucity of reliable sources provided to date. older ≠ wiser04:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.
”
The town of Kunma meets a linked article Wa State, were very likely to be written, and was very notable. Literally it met all criterias required by DABRL. Thus there was definitely no point to revert me for a second time leaving no explanation after I told you to refer MOS:DABRL in the memo. Honestly I don't understand the point to insist your correctness when you have been shown having made a mistake, as all I asked was your avoidance of reverting others two times leaving no explanation especially after the other side have left you a memo showing his/her edit to be legit. Personally I don't think that was too hard or too much. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reliable sources, Kunma is controlled by UWSA so if we exclude Official Wa State News reports there are fewer comparing to other Burmese settlements, but here still are two:
I didn't find more not because there are not any, but because my limited knowledge and intelligence gathering. For example, I didn't search for Shan because I do not know the Shan name of this town. I won't just assume reliable sources to be "sparse" simply because I didn't manage to find enough. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to MOS:DABRL, just below the snippet you selectively quoted: Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term. That is really all I was objecting to about your edit to Kunma -- at that time, there was only one existing article and a bare redlink. As for reliable sources, I really don't understand what you are going on about. If you have the sources, that is fantastic. Please go ahead and edit the article. Putting them on the talk page here benefits no one. Your own difficulty in finding sources only proves my point which was nothing more than to say that compared to the availability of reliable sources for localities in other countries -- the sources ARE in fact extremely limited when it comes to Myanmar. Your own research shows that very point. older ≠ wiser15:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CentreLeftRight: Great. I have switched the relation in Wikidata and is making change to the article. I haven't find the Great Shan name of Dai Yai but I'll add the Wa name first. The Tatmado division, the "Wa State" division and the settlement might be three different things thus I'm not clear about the exact relation of the Burmese and Chinese article. I can give the rough GPS coord, but where exactly Kunma New Village (昆马新寨), which is the main topic of this article (Bao's hometown), is located in these divisions (whether it is the main town of the "Wa State" division and whether it is the main town of the Tatmado division) is also unclear. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CentreLeftRight: Hi there. Do you have any idea about the scope of this article? Kunma New Village, Kunma District, Kunma Township, Kunma Town seems to be four different topics but it's highly unlikely to create four articles here. I kind of want to merge the Burmese article of Kunma Town to this Wikidata entry (but I'm not certain if they are the exact same settlement although apparently both refers to the same area, which is the reason why I intentionally rounded the coord to the middle of nowhere in the Kunma District). In English Wikipedia we definitely can have one article covering four topics but is it legal to, say, have an entry in Wikidata that is simultaneously New York County, New York City, New York State and New York settlement (metropolitan area)? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So I should probably create four Wikidata items. But that would result in the Burmese, Chinese and English article delinked from eath other. Would you please help create some Wikidata redirect in that case to link the three articles? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment As mentioned by CentreLeftRight, Kunma (昆麻) appears to be a natural village (自然村) near Jingde, Guangxi and a Korean place near Gaya-myeon (ko:가야면). None has administrative-level notability but might be notable for reasons I don't know. Either way this article seems to be the MOS:PRIMARYTOPIC of Kunma. However all of above works only if this article should not be split into four (which nor do I want to do), thus for now I'm not yet interested in this topic. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
