Talk:Rungtu language

Lack of ambiguity

Kwamikagami has stated that Rungtu or Rungtu Chin is also an ethnic group, but that ethnic group is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. List of ethnic groups in Burma, in particular, lists the language but not the ethnic group. Please add the information about the ethnic group, or return this article to the simpler title per WP:NCLANG. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue uses 'Rungtu' (and cognate 'Rawngtu') as ethnic names. The fact that WP doesn't (yet) have an article on them is hardly relevant. OLAC also refs the 'Rungtu Chin language'. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need an article, agreed. The information existing is relevant to Wikipedia, though, because of the five pillars -- add it, cite it, verify its notability, delete it if it fails, etc. Editors needn't consult Ethnologue or the rest of the Internet to try to figure out how to title articles on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. → Call me Hahc21 05:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rungtu language → Rungtu – WP:NCLANG: "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language's name is unambiguous as a noun, there is no need for this. Examples are English language and Persian language, contrasted with Esperanto and Latin." Rungtu is unambiguous on Wikipedia, and should be the name of this article. JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a dialectical spelling of "Rongtu", which is an ethnicity, not primarily a language. Ethnologue decided to spell the two Rongtu languages by their dialectical pronunciations, but it's still an ethnic term, rather like Deutsch, Diets, etc., and they use "X" to mean the people and speak of "X language" and "X villages". I don't know if the language uses the name of the people, or if they both use the name of a location, but either way the name is not unambiguous. Your proposed change in the naming conventions would mean that the thousands of language articles that don't (yet) have parallel articles on the people should use the name without "language", but I think that's only appropriate when the article covers the people, their language, and other aspects of them, basically pre-split articles, as some of them are. But this is just a stub about the language. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the proposal is better than leaving the base name unoccupied and no worse than leaving the base name a redirect to the title with "language" suffix, and improves the encyclopedia by using the simpler title where available. Or do you think we should move Latin to Latin language and Esperanto to Esperanto language, as the current guidelines suggest (since the base name is ambiguous) contrary to their own example? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, of course. I advocate following the current consensus, which works pretty well. Eventually we might have Rungtu and Rawngtu as dabs to Rongtu, which would be about the officially-recognized ethnicity, and I suppose we could write a stub if you feel we need to occupy the name with an article just to have something, but regardless, the name is an ethnic one. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "current consensus"? The current guidelines would have us move Latin to Latin language, since "Latin" as a noun is ambiguous. There are no consensuses that worry about what we might have eventually; future Wikipedia gets to handle the arrangement of future Wikipedia's articles. I feel that the consensus is that if you feel this article needs to remain at the qualified name, that there should be another article (or dab page) at the base name, not a redirect to this qualified name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rungtu already redirects here and there's no indication it should point somewhere else. The similarly named Rongtu article can be added to a hat note if necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.