Talk:limba catalană

RFD discussion: February–April 2016
How is this any more useful than having ‘Catalan language?’ -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (probably relevant: —suzukaze (t・c) 10:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC))


 * Damn, that’s a lot. Also, I found this discussion: talk:limba afgană. It seems that one of these entries failed. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * limba afgană failed because there is no Afghan language. No decision was made regarding the others. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. From what I understand the previous argument is not that you won't understand the meaning from +  but because without such an entry you wouldn't know that  is the usual way to say it. To which I say, put it in . Renard Migrant (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, Learner's dictionaries don't proliferate entries to include collocations; they put them in the entry for the critical word in the collocation. They probably hope to thereby increase the chances that someone would find them. I don't think helping translators and those in natural-language programming is a worthwhile goal if it causes the least bit of neglect of human second-language learners and native speakers. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. As a native speaker I can confirm that this way of expressing languages is common. However, back home in the Romanian Wiktionary, we do not use it ("Limbi în română"), because it's pleonastic. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all of those and . Redboywild (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)