Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Spanish language. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Spanish language, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Spanish language in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Spanish language you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Spanish language will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Spanish language, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Request for deletion
Latest comment: 14 years ago52 comments8 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
I've now added {{rfd}} 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)Reply
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)Reply
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.) —RuakhTALK19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 {{wikt}} 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. DCDuringTALK23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
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 {{only in}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
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 ] — perhaps as a redirect to ] or to ] (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)Reply
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. DCDuringTALK17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
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. --EncycloPetey03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
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., ]), 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)Reply
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. —Stephen05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
