Talk:Shilha

Untitled
Please see discussion on Talk:Shilha language. - Lameen Souag (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While not formatted precisely right, this is exactly what a disambiguation page is for it seems. If there is a better way to accomplish the same function, I can't think of it.  --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, the articles being "disambiguated" do not have remotely similar titles. If these other languages are known as Shilha, then shouldn't they be so titled? If not, I suggested adding them as "See also" links. Are there any other disambig pages that only disambiguate between articles with completely different titles? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, as this clearly needs more discussion/thought, I've removed by Speedy tag and opened Articles for deletion/Shilha (disambiguation). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "If these other languages are known as Shilha, then shouldn't they be so titled?" - it is precisely because they are all called "Shilha" that it would be inconvenient and confusing to give them all the same title (though a case could certainly be made for moving part of Nafusi language into an article to be titled "Tunisian Shilha".) The point is that "Shilha" is an alternative name for all these other languages, and people looking for those pages would expect to be redirected from "Shilha" to them. - Lameen Souag (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's just that I've never seen a disambig page whose links are all to articles with completely different titles. I'm happy to accept I might be wrong, hence my statement at Articles for deletion/Shilha (disambiguation) - I suggest you copy your thoughts there too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As discussed at the AfD, it would be good for each article to say that each language is also known as "Shilha". Also, disambig pages don't have references of their own - they only serve to point to other articles, and any references should be in those articles themselves. Considering the redlinked Oued Righ Berber, it's OK to have redlinks in disambig pages if a subject would justify an article (even if it doesn't currently have one) - but would it be a good idea to at least create a stub for that one? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the so-called Berber of Blida Atlas
I don't really know what is this Berber language; sometimes it's called Berbère de l'Atlas blidéen, sometimes Chenoui Berber... I found out there isn't a page for it in English Wikipedia, so I'm a little confused. I mention you here sir to ask you whether it's also called tashelhit by its speakers or not, since I found this video in YouTube where tashelhit is mentioned. Amara-Amaziɣ (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)