Wiktionary talk:Translations/Wikification

I have a few fuzzy guidelines on what a) I always wikify, b) I always dewikify, and c) think of as being in the grey area.

• If I feel most people who speak English know there is a such a language, I dewikify. This means the big / powerful / rich / in-the-news countries who have a national language obviously and unambiguously related to their country name, also language not obviously related to a country name but which are still openly spoken and maintained by large ethnic or religious groups within English-speaking regions: French, German, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic
• If a language is a minority language in a major country, I wikify: Catalan, Basque
• If I've never heard of a language before, or if I think that I would have to explain it if it came up in conversation with a typical person, I wikify: Most Australian, America, African indigenous languages: Pitjantjatjara, Ga
• If a language has been invented or I think some people might find it "nerdy" or "not a real language", I wikify: Esperanto, Interlingua, Klingon
• If a language name is ambiguous with regard to another language name, another country, another name for the same language, with various spelling; but still somewhat well-known, it's in the grey area: Irish, Scottish, Scots, Gaelic, Farsi, Persian, Belarusian

I might come back and some more if I think any up. For me it's partly intuitive. — Hippietrail 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I say we don't do it at all.  Can someone explain to me why we should? 

My reason for saying no to any wikification is because over on the left side of the screen there is a little box labeled "Search," and it works great for finding words you don't know what mean.  Next time you run across Erzyan in a translation table, just type it in the "Search" box and see what you learn! — V-ball 16:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. —Ruakh_TALK 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

But this is just as good an argument for not linking anything at all. You need to argue a case of why some things which can easily be pasted into the search box be linked anyway but that rare language names not be among them. — Hippietrail 10:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Support. No wikification of language names. Because:

1. Language names have no direct relation to a described word.
2. This selection is subjective.
3. If someone regularly works with the same language(s), then he knows the name of language(s). The accidental, casual visitor always can ask Wikipedia / Wiktionary about the name of unknown language.

Any objections? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I fully agreed. --Morkai5 19:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although this language name matches its country, Macedonian is not specific to the country or language of Macedonia. There is also a Greek province nearby named Macedonia, and Alexander the Great (a "Greek") was from Greek Macedonia (not Slavic Macedonia). Hence, there is potential for confusion, so the langugae name should probably be wikified, or at least allow for the possibility of wikification. --EncycloPetey 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

These languages are derived from country names so I would consider not linking them or putting them in the grey list:

Azeri, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Nepalese, Pilipino, Samoan, Scottish Gaelic, Turkmen, Uzbek

These languages are derived from place names which are not the current names of countries:

Alabama, Asturian, Bengali, Catalan, Cornish, Corsican, Faroese, Frisian, Galician, Gujarati, Hawaiian, Neapolitan, Tamil

These languages are regional or minority languages but may still be considered to be commonly known of by average users:

Cherokee, Bengali, Hawaiian, Manx, Maori, Navajo

Some people might like to express their opinions on these. — Hippietrail 13:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Catalan and Basque you said you would always link (see above), I moved Cherokee, Bengali, Hawaiian, Maori, Navajo as commonly known. (Manx? I don't think most people would know that as a language, and few know where it is.) Alabama is a place, but not known as a language. Scottish Gaelic was discussed when standardizing the name, and we linked it (needs to be distinguished from Scots and Irish Gaelic). Nepalese is an error, the language name is Nepali. Turkmen, Uzbek moved up. Robert Ullmann 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some of the Ameridian languages may be well-known in the US, but not necessarily in Australia, India, or China. Keep in mind that this is an international effort with users whose first language may not be English. Personally, I would not put Macedonian on the gray list, since Macedonia has three diffeent possible meanings, including two modern placenames. Pilipino and Scottish Gaelic have the opposote problem of not being the only major language associated with the region. Scottish Gaelic is constantly confused with Scots (which is of course an entirely different language). Pilipino is not the primary language of the Philippines (Tagalog is!), rather Pilipino (which has several potential spellings) is a state standardized form of Tagalog, and this is something most people comming across the term will not know. That language name should therefore be linked for clarity. I don't consider Malagasy to be a "widely known" lnaguage. I expect the majority of English speakers have never heard of it, and even educated people unfamiliar with the term may associate it with Malay or Indonesia rather thean Madagascar. And by the way, Bengali is a national language and is spoken by 230 million people in Bangladesh, so I wouldn't characterize it as either "regional" or "minority". --EncycloPetey 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also note that there are 150-200 languages in use in the wikt that are not yet classified here. Robert Ullmann 08:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I can't see any philosophical justification for splitting languages into three categories. We will never be able to be objective, nor solve the disputes (whether well-meaning or politically motivated). As it is, we just waste bot resources linking and delinking things, offending various contributors in the process. This page should be quietly put out of its misery. Physchim62 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is the world's second most spoken language (after Chinese) - Hindi, not in the first group? Please move it, I am sure that every educated person knows what Hindi is. Bogorm 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that there isn't really any difference between the first two tables; the difference is above-or-below the horizontal rule. The first table is (or was) exactly 40 languages all connected to the names of countries. The second is a number of others (like Hindi), note it also has Swahili, Mandarin, Hebrew, etc. The title of the second section should probably be improved. And just BTW, this page isn't protected. (but should be semi-protected, I'll fix that) Robert Ullmann 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to repugn and condemn strongly the inclusion of the Old Norse, which is one of the culturally most prolific Europæan languages with plethora of illustrious writers and sagas, and to suggest its skipping from Languages always wikilinked to other commonly known languages, next to Old English, which it æquals or even excels in cultural heritage and prominence. If you have any remonstrance, I would be eager to hearken thereunto. Otherwise, I intend to place on mine own the language in its right place hastily. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have at it. Robert Ullmann 09:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you adjust User:AutoFormat so that it ceases adding the link like that? Thanks. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We already have a policy Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian, so I deemed it appropriate to include it in the languages not to be wikified, since it is a well-known language. If there are any objections, I am ready to discuss them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

imho these two are pretty obscure languages the average user has not yet heard of and should not be unlinked. -- Prince Kassad 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think Old English should be linkified, since in my experience many people seem to think it's what Shakespeare wrote in. What do y'all think? —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Done —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

some of the languages linked on this page...do not have entries...which sort of defeats the purpose of linking them. would someone mind creating entries for those languages? thanks — This unsigned comment was added by 24.56.166.100 (talk) at 23:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC).Reply

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wiktionary is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any entry by following the edit link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wiki convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about those languages, that's why I asked here :P   — This unsigned comment was added by 24.56.166.100 (talk) at 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC).Reply

But surely you're capable of consulting Wikipedia, Ethnologue, Google, and so on. It's unlikely that there's anyone reading this page who knows what all the redlinked languages are, so asking is only useful in that it might prompt someone to look them up for you. But then, why not look them up for yourself, and create the entries? It's not like they need to perfect, you know. —Ruakh_TALK 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am rather surprised to find Catalan among the languages to be wikilinked. Catalan is one of the larger languages in Europe, and is known quite widely as well. It seems rather strange to treat it as obscure despite the fact that it has almost 10 million speakers (source: Wikipedia), which is a lot more than many other European languages (say, Estonian). —CodeCat 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think an average American person would not be aware of Catalan, hence the reason why it is wikilinked. -- Prince Kassad 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

For any language there is always someone who hasn't ever heard of it somewhere. So that reasoning doesn't work. Besides, have Americans heard of Estonian, then? —CodeCat 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably more than of Catalan. However, there are some languages I'd like to see removed from the list of languages to not link (namely, Tibetan and Turkmen). -- Prince Kassad 21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your first two sentences seem to bear almost no relationship to the comment they purport to be replying to; but to answer your question, I think that most educated Americans will at least have a vague notion that Estonia is a country in Eastern Europe. I doubt they would know anything of linguistic interest about Estonian (such as what language family it belongs to), but the name will sound familiar. By contrast, I don't think most Americans, even educated ones, will have any sort of notion at all of what Catalan might be. (But, like Prince Kassad, I think we should be linking many more languages than we are. #Old Norse in the wrong place, in particular, is horrifyingly misguided. Though some editors have raised the possibility of not linking any languages, and I would also be fine with that approach.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm with CodeCat in asking to not wikilink Catalan. It's a language known in Europe, and has a more speakers than a lot languages that are not wikilinked.--Morkai5 14:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I support this. I'm Greek, and hell, I know of the language!
It is particularly popular in Greece because players of the football team w:en:FC Barcelona are popularly referred to as "the Catalonians". Therefore most men know well of Catalonia and its language!
And I believe that as the Spanish government devolutes powers to such communities (as is with many countries), the popularity of the language will increase, as time goes on. The language is also known here in England.
So why all this backlash to Catalan being given a fairer status? Wiktionary's readership is mostly from Europe and the Americas anyway (most countries' official language is Spanish, but I don't know how notable Catalan is there) and I think a whole continent that has good awareness of Catalan should be much more than enough for Catalan to be de-wikilinked.
All in all, if Catalan is not on the list, neither should Albanian. --Johnanth 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

We can make a list of why a language is unlinked. That way, we can determine which languages to link and which to unlink, and also whether Catalan should be unlinked.

1st list:

• Albanian: national language of Albania, expected to be known
• Arabic: well-known language
• Armenian: national language of Armenia, expected to be known
• Belarusian: national language of Belarus, expected to be known
• Bosnian: national language of Bosnia, expected to be known
• Bulgarian: national language of Bulgaria, expected to be known
• Burmese: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Chinese: well-known language
• Croatian: national language of Croatia, expected to be known
• Czech: national language of Czechia, expected to be known
• Danish: national language of Denmark, expected to be known
• Dutch: national language of the Netherlands, expected to be known
• English: well-known language (duh!)
• Estonian: national language of Estonia, expected to be known
• Filipino: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Finnish: national language of Finland, expected to be known
• French: well-known language
• Georgian: national language of Georgia, expected to be known
• German: well-known language (I hope!)
• Greek: national language of Greece, expected to be known
• Hungarian: national language of Hungary, expected to be known
• Icelandic: national language of Iceland, expected to be known
• Indonesian: national language of Indonesia, expected to be known
• Italian: well-known language
• Japanese: well-known language
• Korean: well-known language
• Latin: well-known liturgical language
• Latvian: national language of Latvia, expected to be known
• Lithuanian: national language of Lithuania, expected to be known
• Mongolian: should probably be linked (I don't think Mongolia really is well-known)
• Norwegian: national language of Norway, expected to be known
• Polish: national language of Poland, expected to be known
• Portuguese: national language of Portugal, expected to be known
• Romanian: national language of Romania, expected to be known
• Russian: well-known language
• Serbian: national language of Serbia, expected to be known
• Serbo-Croatian: Ivan said so
• Slovak: national language of Slovakia, expected to be known
• Slovene: national language of Slovenia, expected to be known
• Somali: national language of Somalia, expected to be known
• Spanish: well-known language
• Swedish: national language of Sweden, expected to be known
• Thai: national language of Thailand, expected to be known (large immigrant communities)
• Tibetan: should probably be linked (seems a bit too obscure to me)
• Turkish: national language of Turkey, expected to be known
• Ukrainian: national language of Ukraine, expected to be known
• Vietnamese: national language of Vietnam, expected to be known (large immigrant communities)

2nd list:

• Aramaic: famous liturgical language
• Bengali: should probably be linked (Bangladesh is not really well-known)
• Cantonese: large immigrant communities, I think
• Cherokee: should probably be linked (seems a bit obscure even in the US)
• Esperanto: very famous constructed language
• Faroese: should be known at least in Europe, due to Faroe Islands
• Hawaiian: well-known in the US and probably elsewhere too
• Hebrew: well-known language
• Hindi: national language of India, expected to be known
• Irish: national language of Ireland, expected to be known
• Kazakh: national language of Kazakhstan, expected to be known
• Kurdish: large immigrant communities
• Malay: national language of Malaysia, expected to be known
• Maltese: national language of Malta, expected to be known
• Mandarin: should be well-known to anyone who has ever bothered with Chinese
• Maori: famous in New Zealand, but nowhere else really... dunno about it
• Min Nan: should probably be linked (very obscure)
• Navajo: famous in the US, not so much elsewhere
• Nepali: should probably be linked (Nepal also is a bit obscure)
• Old Norse: should probably be linked (if we don't even have OE, then ON shouldn't be here either)
• Persian: national language of Iran (Persia), expected to be known
• Sanskrit: should probably be linked (yes it's a liturgical language, but not really known in the West)
• Swahili: famous African language
• Urdu: national language of Pakistan, expected to be known
• Uzbek: should probably be linked (Uzbekistan also seems obscure to me)
• Welsh: well-known in the United Kingdom
• Yiddish: should probably be linked (very obscure)

-- Prince Kassad 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

All of this is still going to be very subjective. Why don't we use number of speakers as a dividing line? It can't get more objective than that... —CodeCat 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because it is not a good criteria at all. It will put all those people who keep getting children en masse in first place. -- Prince Kassad 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, we have no data about people's knowledge of a language, and, actually, to follow that criterium is so subjective. There are about 9 million people that speaks Catalan, and I think that's not a bad criterium for unlinking Catalan.--Morkai5 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Number of speakers sounds good. Languages with at least 5 million speakers should get wikilinked: someone who doesn't know what French is would be well-advised to click the link and find out. Languages without that many speakers aren't worth linkifying, because we can't expect our readers to care what Maori is. —Ruakh_TALK 18:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. 5 million would be too little. I believe languages with over 50-60 million speakers should automatically be unlinked—but again—people should be allowed to have a say on if they should be linked back—like Cantonese, for example, which is to my best knowledge a dialect of Chinese (sorry for my lack of knowledge on this language). Just think of something like w:en:Chichewa, the official language of Malawi and Zambia. It has ~9 million speakers, but the majority of readers have probably never heard of the language before in their lives, even if they are linguists and what-not. Just my 2p. --Γιάννης Α. ^✆|☑ 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have misunderstood me. By my proposal, Cantonese and Chichewa would be linked, because they have enough speakers to be worth caring about. —Ruakh_TALK 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's the strangest proposal I've ever heard. I think people would like to know what that weird sounding language appearing on water is. -- Prince Kassad 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

] has too many "weird sounding languages" for anyone to click all of its links. And I don't think you're a good judge of what language-names sound weird, anyway. I think "Faroese" sounds pretty weird. But "Catalan" is normal — anyone can tell that it's the language spoken in Catala — so I suppose we can unlink it. —Ruakh_TALK 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you're being ironic. It's true that all languages are important, and we should not to wikilink languages. If anyone wants to know anything about a language and doesn't know, he will find out (via Wikipedia, f. e.). But if the criterium is to wikilink unknown languages, Catalan is not one of these, almost for million people in Europe.--Morkai5 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the criterion is to wikilink all languages, except for a small number of extremely well-known languages. You say that I'm being ironic, and I can't deny that, but my irony has a point. Suppose that 30% of our readers are familiar with a given language. I guess you think that we should unlink that language, because the link is only useful to 70% of our readers? I think that makes no sense. —Ruakh_TALK 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Touché! ;) You're right. But, with the same criteria, we should wikilink more languages than the actual ones.--Morkai5 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

May I make a few amendments (in my opinion) to Prince Kassad's list?
I've had a rethink about a bunch of languages and... I think we should be more conservative with which languages we unlink.
I'm particularly unhappy with how Prince Kassad favoured IE languages, even obscure ones like Faroese. Here is my list (obviously copied and pasted from the above post):

• Albanian: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Arabic: well-known language
• Armenian: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Belarusian: national language of Belarus, expected to be known
• Bosnian: national language of Bosnia, expected to be known
• Bulgarian: national language of Bulgaria, expected to be known
• Burmese: should probably be linked, obscure language in the West
• Chinese: well-known language
• Croatian: national language of Croatia, expected to be known
• Czech: national language of Czechia, expected to be known
• Danish: national language of Denmark, expected to be known
• Dutch: national language of the Netherlands, expected to be known
• English: well-known language (duh!)
• Estonian: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Filipino: large immigrant communities, big country (how on earth can you find Filipino obscure?!)
• Finnish: national language of Finland, expected to be known
• French: well-known language
• Georgian: national language of Georgia, expected to be known
• German: well-known language
• Greek: well-known language
• Hungarian: national language of Hungary, expected to be known
• Icelandic: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Indonesian: national language of Indonesia, expected to be known
• Italian: well-known language
• Japanese: well-known language
• Korean: well-known language
• Latin: well-known liturgical language
• Latvian: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Lithuanian: should probably be linked, obscure language
• Mongolian: unsure, as Mongolia had an enormous impact on world history
• Norwegian: national language of Norway, expected to be known
• Polish: national language of Poland, expected to be known
• Portuguese: well-known language
• Romanian: national language of Romania, expected to be known
• Russian: well-known language
• Serbian: national language of Serbia, expected to be known
• Serbo-Croatian: should probably be linked, rarely used name for the language
• Slovak: national language of Slovakia, expected to be known
• Slovene: should probably be linked, Slovenia seems a bit obscure to me
• Somali: national language of Somalia, expected to be known
• Spanish: well-known language
• Swedish: national language of Sweden, expected to be known
• Thai: national language of Thailand, expected to be known (large immigrant communities)
• Tibetan: should probably be linked, obscure language in the sense that if independence is granted to Tibet, news from Tibet won't reach the rest of the world for a while
• Turkish: national language of Turkey, expected to be known
• Ukrainian: national language of Ukraine, expected to be known
• Vietnamese: national language of Vietnam, expected to be known (large immigrant communities, US history)

2nd list:

• Aramaic: should probably be linked, liturgical language, often erroneously called Arabic
• Bengali: should probably be linked (Bangladesh is not really well-known)
• Cantonese: should probably be linked, not obscure but often known as simply Chinese
• Cherokee: should probably be linked (seems very obscure outside the US)
• Esperanto: very famous constructed language
• Faroese: should probably be linked, very obscure language, barely known islands (you have to squint hard on the map to see them, and from personal experience, kids are not taught about the Faroe Islands at all in Greek & British schools)
• Hawaiian: well-known in the US and Europe, as Hawai'i is a nice place that everyone longs to go to :-)
• Hebrew: well-known language
• Hindi: national language of India, expected to be known
• Irish: should probably be linked, obscure language due to low amount of speakers. Most Britons believe "Irish" refers to the Irish dialect of English from my experience.
• Kazakh: should probably be linked, few speakers, the country is only really known due to Borat in in the west, it seems.
• Kurdish: unsure, Kurdistan is a pretty big country in a favourable place but spoken by only a small portion of the Kurdish population. Like Tibet, the news will forget about Kurdistan (and in turn Kurdish) one day.
• Malay: national language of Malaysia, expected to be known
• Maltese: should probably be linked, obscure language (Malta seems obscure to me)
• Mandarin: well-known language, taught widely in the Western world
• Maori: should probably be linked, obscure language. Funnily enough, New Zealanders are often jokingly called "Maori" even though most have other heritage.
• Min Nan: should probably be linked (very obscure)
• Navajo: should probably be linked, I've never heard of it myself before
• Nepali: national language of Nepal, expected to be known
• Old Norse: should probably be linked (if we don't even have OE, then ON shouldn't be here either)
• Persian: well-known language
• Sanskrit: should probably be linked (yes it's a liturgical language, but not really known in the West) <- agreed,f Prince Kassad
• Swahili: well-known language, at least all over Africa, large immigrant communities
• Urdu: national language of Pakistan, expected to be known, very well known especially in Europe due to huge immigrant communities (;_;)
• Uzbek: should probably be linked (Uzbekistan also seems obscure to me)
• Welsh: unsure well-known in the United Kingdom, not so much outside it. Wales seems obscure to me as a place, I bet most English speakers could not locate Wales on a map
• Yiddish: should probably be linked (very obscure, after some sad events)

As for Catalan... well, I'm not sure to be honest. It is quite well known in Europe, certainly far better than Faroese and Albanian. Is it well known in the US and elsewhere? --Γιάννης Α. ^✆|☑ 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think your statement that "Prince Kassad favoured IE languages, even obscure ones like Faroese" is quite backward. How is it "favoring" a language to unlink it? I think that's disfavoring the language. —Ruakh_TALK 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The more I look at this discussion, the more I favour simply linking every language. It's an easy option and it ends the debate once and for all with no significant cost. —CodeCat 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Or, better yet, simply unlinking every language. The language-names bear no relationship to the entries that contain them, and the links do nothing to help anyone understand anything. —Ruakh_TALK 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ruakh, and subscribe his words. I prefer to unlink all languages.--Morkai5 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I removed Min Nan from the list. I might do some more as well soon. -- Prince Kassad 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

What happened with this discussion? This got stuck and nothing was done. Are all languages going to be wikilinked or are all languaged going to be unlinked? Something has to be done about this, in my humble opinion.--Morkai5 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

A little while ago we decided to unlink all languages, so this page isn't actually used anymore and only kept for historical reasons. —CodeCat 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names. --Yair rand (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wiktionary:Translations/Wikification

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Not just {{inactive}}; wholly replaced by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names, which ruled that no language names are to be wikified, now enforced by format bots. This is misleading and useless. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Delete. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is of historical interest. And if we ever decide to wikify language names, the history of this page will be of use. I therefore recommending converting it to hard redirect to that vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd delete it actually and put the link to the vote in the deletion summary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Suppose, one day, we decide to wikify language names. Obviously, we'll look at the vote. We'll also try to think what page had the old list of languages to be linked, so we can think whether to do it the same way, etc. If the latter links to the former, then whatlinkshere will help us. If only its deletion summary links to the vote, then whatlinkshere will tell us nothing. Moreover, even if we do know where the old list was, once it's deleted, only an admin will be able to see it, whereas others might wish to. These are reasons to redirect rather than delete. What are the reasons to delete rather than redirect?​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Redirect per msh210. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Redirected. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply