The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for speedy deletion, but it clearly needs some discussion. My problem with it is that the articles it is disambiguating between do not have remotely similar titles, and the disambig template says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." If the various languages are all known as "Shilha", then perhaps they should all be moved to included that name in the title? Or if that name is not actually appropriate, perhaps they should be added as "See also" links in the Shilha language article? I'm really not sure now, so I've brought it here to see if people think it should be deleted, or whether there are cases where the "articles associated with the same title" thing can be disregarded -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Speaking as the guy who wrote it: "Shilha" is an alternative name for all the languages listed - I would understand that to be how they are "associated with the same title". People searching for information on Tunisian Berber, say, under the name of "Shilha" [1] are going to be rather frustrated if they end up at a page describing the not very closely related Shilha language of southern Morocco if there's no path leading from it to Nafusi language. (See the article's talk page for discussion.) - Lameen Souag ( talk) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for speedy deletion, but it clearly needs some discussion. My problem with it is that the articles it is disambiguating between do not have remotely similar titles, and the disambig template says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." If the various languages are all known as "Shilha", then perhaps they should all be moved to included that name in the title? Or if that name is not actually appropriate, perhaps they should be added as "See also" links in the Shilha language article? I'm really not sure now, so I've brought it here to see if people think it should be deleted, or whether there are cases where the "articles associated with the same title" thing can be disregarded -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Speaking as the guy who wrote it: "Shilha" is an alternative name for all the languages listed - I would understand that to be how they are "associated with the same title". People searching for information on Tunisian Berber, say, under the name of "Shilha" [1] are going to be rather frustrated if they end up at a page describing the not very closely related Shilha language of southern Morocco if there's no path leading from it to Nafusi language. (See the article's talk page for discussion.) - Lameen Souag ( talk) 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply