text:
Talk:Romanian language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects. Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romanian language


text: bonifiions

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: bonifiions


text: bonifiiez

title: bonifiiez


text: bonifiaient

title: bonifiaient


text: bonifiai

title: bonifiai


text: bonifias

title: bonifias


text: bonifia

title: bonifia


text: bonifiâmes

title: bonifiâmes


text: bonifiâtes

title: bonifiâtes


text: bonifièrent

title: bonifièrent


text: bonifierai

title: bonifierai


text:
Talk:French language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:French language


text: bonifieras

title: bonifieras


text: bonifiera

title: bonifiera


text: bonifierons

title: bonifierons


text: bonifierez

title: bonifierez


text: bonifieront

title: bonifieront


text: bonifierais

title: bonifierais


text: bonifierait

title: bonifierait


text: bonifierions

title: bonifierions


text: bonifieriez

title: bonifieriez


text:
Talk:Italian language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Italian language


text: bonifieraient

title: bonifieraient


text: bonifiasse

title: bonifiasse


text: bonifiasses

title: bonifiasses


text: bonifiât

title: bonifiât


text: bonifiassions

title: bonifiassions


text: bonifiassiez

title: bonifiassiez


text: bonifiassent

title: bonifiassent


text:
vitrifiant

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) vitrifying

title: vitrifiant


text: vitrifié

title: vitrifié


text:
Talk:Spanish language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spanish language


text: vitrifie

title: vitrifie


text: vitrifions

title: vitrifions


text:
Talk:Arabic language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian] language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arabic language


text: vitrifiez

title: vitrifiez


text: vitrifient

title: vitrifient


text: vitrifiais

title: vitrifiais


text: vitrifiait

title: vitrifiait


text: vitrifiions

title: vitrifiions


text: vitrifiiez

title: vitrifiiez


text: vitrifiaient

title: vitrifiaient


text:
Talk:Russian language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Russian language


text: vitrifiai

title: vitrifiai


text: vitrifias

title: vitrifias


text: vitrifia

title: vitrifia


text: vitrifiâmes

title: vitrifiâmes


text: vitrifiâtes

title: vitrifiâtes


text: vitrifièrent

title: vitrifièrent


text: vitrifierai

title: vitrifierai


text: vitrifieras

title: vitrifieras


text: vitrifiera

title: vitrifiera


text: vitrifierons

title: vitrifierons


text:
Talk:Danish language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Danish language


text: vitrifierez

title: vitrifierez


text: vitrifieront

title: vitrifieront


text: vitrifierais

title: vitrifierais


text: vitrifierait

title: vitrifierait


text: vitrifierions

title: vitrifierions


text: vitrifieriez

title: vitrifieriez


text: vitrifieraient

title: vitrifieraient


text: vitrifiasse

title: vitrifiasse


text: vitrifiasses

title: vitrifiasses


text:
Talk:Dutch language

Request for deletion

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

French language

 * delete wikts inserted at French language. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian language

 * delete wikt cat it inserted at Italian language, wikt italian already there. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic language

 * delete Wikt inserted at WP DCDuring TALK 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish language

 * delete. Wikts inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch language

 * delete. Wikts inserted in WP article. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language

 * delete. Wikt inserted at WP. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language
And all others I may have missed. All of these are redirects which seem to have no real point. --Yair rand 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wikt|Swedish inserted at Swedish language DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to create these as full entries as they're all idiomatic. Is the French language just a language that's French? I don't think so. The fact that this would allow a large number of entries to created doesn't bother me. I mean WT:CFE doesn't exist yet (criteria for exclusion). I suspect not many will agree with me, but these seem to me to meet CFI and since we don't have any criteria for exclusion, why oppose them? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * French language is just the language that's French, yes, for the obvious sense of French. Delete these all. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. People search for this, and they mean by it the language spoken in Paris or Quebec. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * More: Latin language, Slovenian language, Mongolic language, Arabic language, Scots language, Hungarian language, Hawaiian language, Urdu language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Ancient Greek language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language, Low Saxon language, German language, Telugu language, Polish language, Turkish language, Armenian language, Frankish language, Portuguese language, Leonese language, Old English language.
 * American Sign Language, unlike Latin language, is the name of the language. Same for French Sign Language. Not sure whether it merits inclusion on those grounds, but certainly there's a strongler argument therefor. Delete the rest, though. — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and "Sioux language" is an informal term for Lakota. These need to be checked one by one. --Hekaheka 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same seems to be true for Maroon Spirit Language. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now added to all the above listed (i.e., Romanian language through Swedish language and Latin language through Old English language), so that anyone watching them will know they're nominated. — msh210 ℠ 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about these: dead language, reconstructed language, artificial language, foreign language, living language, child language and many, many more. --Hekaheka 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss them individually, yes? — msh210 ℠ 17:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that I made a point of not saying 'keep' I just said that I can't see how they don't meet CFI. A bit like Siberian cat. Surely that's not just a cat that's Siberian? Similar, to add some more, Old English, Old French, Old Dutch. Is Old Dutch just a Dutch that's old? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but "Old Dutch language" is "Old Dutch" + "language", a bit like a "Ford motorcar" is "Ford" + "motorcar". --Hekaheka 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects if not full entries. People search for these terms. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete Yair and msh210's examples. They are here only because of Wikipedia's influence. "The language-name language" is a common formula for referring to language-name. If we include it, we might as well include "color-name in color" (a common formula for describing a color-name object), "number years of age", and so on. (I would also be inclined to delete Hekaheka's examples, but I agree with msh210 that they should be discussed separately.) —Ruakh TALK 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that by msh210's examples you mean Hekaheka's examples, which msh210 commented in the middle of. --Yair rand 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops, thanks. I meant the first half of Hekaheka's examples. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even American Sign language and the others I mention as being less deletable that Latin language, Ruakh? (Just trying to clarify your stance.) — msh210 ℠ 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, you know what I mean. My vote applies only to [[Swedish language]] and the ones just like it. —Ruakh TALK 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason to not delete them quite yet is that they would help a user at a sister project entitled their standard way to get to our entry if no parameter was specified. I have inserted a in the Swedish entry. Due process would say that we should make sure that each one has a heading on this page. Give it a week to see if anyone has some arguments we haven't heard. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think we may as well keep the redirects per DCDuring as even if we remove all the Wiktionary links to them, they may be linked from other projects like Commons and Wikipedia. About a third of the ones above are not redirects. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Or . Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm really not following this logic. We should keep only in or redirect entries for everything in Wikipedia, in case they wish to link to us? So we should have [[Nelson DeMille]] — perhaps as a redirect to [[Nelson]] or to [[DeMille]] (or as a disambiguation page for both!) or as an only-in page — just because WP has an article by that title? Oh — wait — perhaps you mean merely that existent entries of that nature should not be deleted (but we shouldn't create them either). Well, half of the speedily deleted entries (the ones that don't even make it to RFD) are of that nature. Remember that (as someone — Connel? — was fond of saying) everything we don't actively delete we are tacitly encouraging the creation of. — msh210 ℠ 16:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to encourage the retention of these entries. I think that due RfD process is an opportunity for us to check the WP language articles to make sure that they have links to en.wikt. I found that some of them have "example" sections that have phrasebook-type entries. That kind of a section would well stand to have links to wikt ("wikt|Category:XXX language"). Those articles seem like good places for us to attract users who might become contributors. As such, they should be thoroughly salted with in-line links to en.wikt and project boxes, as should the English language articles in every wikipedia and wiktionary. Any WP language and linguistic articles should get that kind of attention. Possibly also articles where we have an apparent deficit of expertise among our contributors. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Delete (most). Most of these entries only came into existence because the imported User boxes from Wikipedia were designed to link to"X language", since that is how Wikipedia names their language articles.  We don't do that here, and so do not need the entries, even as redirects. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-redirects
Of the above, some are not redirects at all. They are: Mongolic language, Greek language, Romance language, Chinese language, Persian language, Maroon Spirit Language, Japanese language, Bicolano language, Sioux language, French Sign Language, American Sign Language. The last two are exceptions (French Sign and American Sign are not names of languages!) Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the negative points of keeping the redirects are? How is this different to be at one's beck and call and at one's beck and call redirecting to beck and call? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd like these deleted. It's other people that seem to prefer redirects in these sort of cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A difference is that someone who thinks of be at one's beck and call as a verb may look it up that way in a dictionary, and such people may well exist, whereas the vast majority of people know not to look up French language in a dictionary. I support redirecting from the foo to foo where the noun foo is only used with the (e.g., [[the 68–95–99.7 rule]]), since people may look it up that way, but not from the cat to cat, as no one should look up the cat in a dictionary. — msh210 ℠ 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects. People search for these terms. Deleting them sames no disk space, deletions with all revisions are saved permanently exactly the same as nondeletes. —Stephen 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirects, which is our norm in these cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chinese language, Greek language, Persian language, Japanese language, Bicolano language and all redirects.  Keep all other non-redirects. --Yair rand 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I've moved Bicolano language to Bicolano and the same for Maroon Spirit. The others that refer to specific languages are not also redirects. So now we're only discussing the redirects, not the entries themselves. See below at as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept all redirects from "X language" to "X". Kept "Romance language". Kept "American Sign Language" and "French Sign Language". I think that's the lot. Striking. Will de-tag the redirect pages to remove them from the RFD cat. — msh210 ℠ 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I deleted those that redirected out of mainspace. — msh210 ℠ 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dutch language


text: vitrifiât

title: vitrifiât


text: vitrifiassions

title: vitrifiassions


text: vitrifiassiez

title: vitrifiassiez


text: vitrifiassent

title: vitrifiassent


text: authentifiant

title: authentifiant


text: authentifié

title: authentifié


text: authentifie

title: authentifie