Talk:Japanese language

Japanese language
+ all the other "XXX language" redirects: shouldn't they all be deleted as unnecessary SoP redirects? I've marked all the ones I found with. --Pereru (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note: Pereru, you should probably compile a complete list here, and instead of having, they should have   so that they all link here. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, I previously voted keep for all these entries for a really stupid reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of the ones I found (there probably are others):

--Pereru (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Spanish language, Portuguese language, French language, Italian language, Hebrew language, Arabic language, German language, Dutch language, Danish language, Russian language, Polish language, Greek language, Urdu language, Turkish language, Chinese language, Japanese language
 * Latin language. (If I find any more, I'll post them here.) --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bicolano language, Leonese language, Low Saxon language, Old English language, Persian language . - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also possibly Gheg Albanian, Lipan Apache. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I’m indifferent. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These crop up every so often. Hard redirect to Japanese or the like unless there is some additional reason to keep any specifically. DAVilla 00:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep some of them. For example, Chinese language means Mandarin (or sometimes Classical Chinese) while Chinese languages means a language group of Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, etc. In the latter case, you don’t say Chineses. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But why redirect? The fact that Chinese language means Mandarim sounds to me like ==Usage notes== material, not a redirect. Or else, why isn't French language the same? After all, it doesn't refer to Breton, Alsacian, Wayana, or other languages natively spoken in the territory of the French Republic, but only to the official language of that state.
 * Also, my point here is about lack of unified policy. If Urdu language is deemed a "useful" redirect, then why not Latvian language, which was deemed worthy of immediate deletion? Or, conversely: if Latvian language should be deleted, why not delete Urdu language? What's the big difference? --Pereru (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Chinese language", like "Chinese", is easily attestable in either sense—Mandarin specifically or the Chinese language family generally. (Here is one example of the latter. More are easy to come by.) There appears to be no distinction in meaning between Chinese language and Chinese + language. —Caesura(t) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that these "* language" terms are older than "*". Thus, the term "English language" would have been used at a period at which "English" would not have been used to refer to the language. If that is so, I would like to keep "English language" as the only English term referring to the English language in that period of language. But this is a mere hypothesis, which I do not know how to verify. Some more thoughts: in German, "Deutsche Sprache" seems to be preferred in formal publication, or at least it used to be so, or I have got something wrong. This, again, would be a hint for me to want to keep the terms under discussions, both the English ones and non-English ones. But as all this is just a guess and hypothesis, I abstain. Let me add that the redirects seem to be some sort of recognition of semi-inclusion-worthiness of the terms under discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "English" alone to mean "English language" is as old as the English language itself; OED has citations dating back to early Old English. And if there is some register difference between "deutsche Sprache" and "Deutsch" (which I doubt; "Deutsch" is surely easy to attest in even the most formal settings), I can't imagine how that could have any conceivable bearing on the idiomaticity of these phrases in English that are under consideration. Delete them all. This is a straightforward case of SOP. —Caesura(t) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Often "X" refers to a political entity (which has clearly defined geographic borders), while "X language" refers to a language. Dutch Low Saxon is spoken in the Netherlands, but not part of the Dutch language, Flemish is a lect of the Dutch language mostly spoken in Belgium. --129.125.102.126 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Against a decision (keep and delete) for "all the other 'XXX language' redirects": for some languages "XXX" is almost equal to "XXX language" (because XXX is almost exclusively used in linguistics), in other cases the reason to call "YYY" an "XXX language" is the rule of "XXX" (as a polity) over the region where YYY is spoken. --129.125.102.126 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete / hard redirect. Ƿidsiþ 11:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 11:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Striking as it has already been redirected. Use your best judgement on others. DAVilla 04:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. You don't seem to get it — we're talking about deleting the redirects themselves. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad! That's a keep for the redirect then. DAVilla 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects are relatively harmless compared to full entries, at least as long as they don't conflict with uses in other languages. They help users get where they need to be, without requiring much extra attention or work from our part. I don't think there are any languages for which the term "(word) language" should not redirect to "(word)" so there isn't that much of a problem with conflicts. 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 15:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)