Reconstruction talk:Proto-Brythonic/Tankoriɣ

Language
, is this meant to be Gaulish or Common Brythonic or what? — JohnC5 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Proto-Brythonic, as it was found in England, 4th c. Please see the reference link in the footer. Cheers. --Victar (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, well it cannot be Proto-Brythonic, since that is a non-mainspace (reconstructed) language. Are you looking to have a code for Common Brythonic made? — JohnC5 00:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant about that. Common Brythonic and Proto-Brythonic are the same language, except that for the latter we reconstruct only the last common stage. This term is what you might call early Brythonic or Primitive, before it was really very characteristically Brythonic yet. Similar to Primitive Irish and Proto-Norse (an attested language!), neither of which differed very much from their earlier reconstructed stage either. Whereas Old Irish, Proto-Brythonic and Old Norse are very clearly much more developed. —CodeCat 00:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what I'm pushing for over here: Wiktionary_talk:About_Proto-Brythonic. Come join in. =) --Victar (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm currently only concerned with the module errors. — JohnC5 01:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Personally, I agree with you, and think it's Early Brythonic, with the retention of the intermediary thematic vowel. However, as for what language code to use, I'm not sure.  or   would be ideal, I would think. --Victar (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment. The inscription is in Latin, and our rules generally require attestations in the language. The Latin attestation makes this a Latin name, not a Brythonic one. —CodeCat 01:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , you couldn't wait for us to finish our discussion before making a decision yourself? Seems a bit heavy-handed. --Victar (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I had been given the option, I would have moved this back to Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/Tankorix. --Victar (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You may still create that Brythonic entry. I, however, was not wrong to create a Latin entry from an attested Latin form. I apologize if that seems brusque, but that entry is perfectly merited. — JohnC5 01:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but it would have been kind to have said something before you made the change, given my open and rapid communication. Anyway, alea iacta est. --Victar (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit fatalistic. I meant no offense and am sorry to have affronted you. — JohnC5 02:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)