Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman language: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:08, 5 March 2018

Roman language

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every entry on this page is essentially a misnomer, there is no "Roman language". - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: they are all (or most) terms which someone might think to be called "Roman language" and are likely to be helpful to some readers. WP:IAR if need be. PamD 09:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a perfectly reasonable search term in any event. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obvious search term for which disambiguation is needed. Our article on the Roman language (which is called either Romanesco or Romanaccio) is at Romanesco dialect, not an obvious title if you happen not to know, or to have forgotten, that name. Clearly it needs to be distinguished from the Ancient Roman language. The other items are all plausible too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough entries that could plausibly referred to as a "Roman language" (Latin, Roman empire languages, Roman Italian dialect, Romance languages). The others, even if not referred to as a "Roman language" are certainly close enough that their inclusion would be helpful for readers, even if that has to be under a "See also" section. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a useful disambig page. I would maybe reconsider the "You might be looking for:" header at the top of the page, as that doesn't seem very standard to me. There should be a better way of wording that. Rockypedia (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 * '''Keep''', an obvious search term for which disambiguation is needed. Our article on the Roman language (which is called either Romanesco or Romanaccio) is at [[Romanesco dialect]], not an obvious title if you happen not to know, or to have forgotten, that name. Clearly it needs to be distinguished from the [[Latin|Ancient Roman language]]. The other items are all plausible too. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Definitely enough entries that could plausibly referred to as a "Roman language" (Latin, Roman empire languages, Roman Italian dialect, Romance languages). The others, even if not referred to as a "Roman language" are certainly close enough that their inclusion would be helpful for readers, even if that has to be under a "See also" section. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' clearly a useful disambig page. [[User:Rockypedia|Rockypedia]] ([[User talk:Rockypedia|talk]]) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' clearly a useful disambig page. I would maybe reconsider the "You might be looking for:" header at the top of the page, as that doesn't seem very standard to me. There should be a better way of wording that. [[User:Rockypedia|Rockypedia]] ([[User talk:Rockypedia|talk]]) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)