This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The title of the article needs to be Languages of Nepal. Reasons:
Nepalese Language implies that it is about a single language
The wording group of languages says that the languages are linguistically related. Instead, we have languages in at least three different language families.
Languages of Nepal accurately describes the content of this article - It summarizes what languages are spoken in Nepal. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That was my reaction when I saw where the article had been moved, and I arranged for it to be moved back for that reason. And I suspect that most people would understand "Nepalese language" to be a synonym for "Nepali language". Also "Languages of X" is the regular convention here. See the list of all "Languages of" articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed strange that the person who added all that scholarly content didn't get that his statements in the lead were bad usage in one case and contradictory in the next. On a hunch I searched and found that most of it is copied from the World Heritage Encyclopedia. I've tagged it as a copyvio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appears outdated after reversions of content changes by Manpoudar — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, thanks, I should follow up here and affirm that the outcome was that the World Heritage Encyclopedia is a mirror of here, not a source whose copyright had been violated. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
