Talk:Czech Sign Language

Czech Sign Language and 88 other
Ethiopian Sign Language, Gambian Sign Language, Ghana Sign Language, Guinean Sign Language, Hong Kong Sign Language, Hungarian Sign Language, Indo-Pakistani Sign Language, Indonesian Sign Language, Inuit Sign Language, Iraqi Sign Language, Irish Sign Language, Israeli Sign Language, Italian Sign Language, Jamaican Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language, Jordanian Sign Language, Jumla Sign Language, Korean Sign Language, Kuwaiti Sign Language, Laos Sign Language, Latvian Sign Language, Lebanese Sign Language, Lithuanian Sign Language, Lyons Sign Language, Macau Sign Language, Macedonian Sign Language, Malagasy Sign Language, Malaysian Sign Language, Malian Sign Language, Maltese Sign Language, Mbour Sign Language, Mongolian Sign Language, Moroccan Sign Language, Mozambican Sign Language, Namibian Sign Language, Nepal Sign Language, New Zealand Sign Language, Nicaraguan Sign Language, Nigerian Sign Language, Norwegian Sign Language, Omani Sign Language, Palestinian Sign Language, Panamanian Sign Language, Penang Sign Language, Persian Sign Language, Peruvian Sign Language, Polish Sign Language, Portuguese Sign Language, Providence Island Sign Language, Puerto Rican Sign Language, Qatari Sign Language, Quebec Sign Language, Rennellese Sign Language, Russian Sign Language, Salvadoran Sign Language, Samoan Sign Language, Saudi Arabian Sign Language, Selangor Sign Language, Sierra Leone Sign Language, Slovakian Sign Language, Slovenian Sign Language, Somali Sign Language, Spanish Sign Language, Sri Lankan Sign Language, Swedish Sign Language, Swiss-French Sign Language, Swiss-German Sign Language, Swiss-Italian Sign Language, Taiwanese Sign Language, Tanzanian Sign Language, Tebul Sign Language, Tibetan Sign Language, Tunisian Sign Language, Turkish Sign Language, Uganda Sign Language, Ukrainian Sign Language, United Arab Emirates Sign Language, Urubú Sign Language, Uruguayan Sign Language, Valencian Sign Language, Venezuelan Sign Language, Walloon Sign Language, Warlpiri Sign Language, Yemeni Sign Language, Yiddish Sign Language, Yugoslav Sign Language, Zambian Sign Language, Zimbabwe Sign Language. Entries with no information. Maro 23:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Let's wait until someone gives them a proper definition. That's what is for, isn't it? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How long we'll be waiting? No one gave them a definition for over a year. They're not even "words" but phrases. What definition should they have? "XYZ Sign Language is a language of the deaf used in XYZ country"? Even with such definition they will be useless. I think such entries would be good for Wikipedia, not for Wiktionary.
 * Rfdef template is good for entries that have some other information, like pronunciation, translations, inflection, other definitions. These entries have no other information excluding title. Maro 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your logic that "XYZ Sign Language is a language of the deaf used in XYZ country". If someone creates a new sign language for use in Zimbabwe, that won't make it a Zimbabwe Sign Language; if everyone who uses Zimbabwe Sign Language moves out of Zimbabwe, it will still be Zimbabwe Sign Language. It is a language by itself and has an ISO code, not a phrase describing any sign language used in Zimbabwe. Also, some of these languages are spoken outside their namesake country . As for content, American Sign Language is a good example of a decent sign language entry. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Also, this has been discussed previously: WT:RFD. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone tried to systematically cover every possible combination of significant nationality/ethnicity with the words "sign language". The problem with being systematic is you end up cluttering up the place with the 90 percent that will never be defined because the referent doesn't exist so you can have empty entries standing by for the other 10 percent. Why not just delete them all and let people create what they need when they need them? It's not like there's any usable content to lose, after all. Besides, if someone can create 88 entries just by varying one part of the term, doesn't that demonstrate pretty well that we're dealing with SOP? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a point about whether these could survive rfv, but I thought I would check a few, just to be safe. It would seem I was mistaken about these being random non-existent terms: spot-checking shows that these are apparently all actual sign languages, and the terms are in use online. I still think there's little point to having empty entries, but my previous comment is way off the mark. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sign languages have language families, minority statuses and such so the definitions could potentially be more than "sign language used by the population of somewhere". &mdash;Internoob 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Split: into several RfDs Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker)


 * delete all. Why are we even discussing this? The entries can return if and only if they get definitions. As long as they don't have any, they're speedy deletion material. -- Liliana • 00:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep when they exist (I checked the first one). They are language names. But definitions should be added, of course. Lmaltier (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at only one, and it included no info besides POS (as a header), and POS is, I think, obvious. There's no reason to keep that. OTOH, I see no particular reason to delete it: why bother? In other words, I say delete (for any with no info besides POS), but will not be the one to delete. OTOH, keep any that include any other info (etymology, translation, vel sim.), even if lacking a definition. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kept all. Anyway, these were never {rfd}-tagged. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)