Template talk:language

Requests for deletion/Others - kept
Kept. See archived discussion. 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

simplified
Can this template be simplified now that there's not lang:* templates (just ? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Conrad.Irwin 15:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:language
This used to be pretty important when we still had the lang: templates like (and, moreover, when not all language templates existed yet). This is now no longer the case, and the needed code has gotten reasonably simple that it could just be substituted in all templates where this is embedded in, thereby saving a lot of unnecessary overhead. -- Liliana • 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see what this template does, but I don't know what it's for. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing it does is removing the links from language templates. If we got consensus to no longer link language names in translation tables, we could get rid of even that and the code would literally just be . -- Liliana • 18:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete! I even wanted to rfd it and then I saw it was already here! —CodeCat 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, I cannot see a function other the one's we already object to, and as pointed out, those can be handled by just adding l= to any templates that call language codes (that is to say, will produce  nouns]] for  (Catalan) because of the link, change that to  and you're done! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would the language templates need a link at all? Language templates are used so often, we want to make them as simple and fast as possible. That means that they should all consist of nothing more than:  (name) (optional extra info) . —CodeCat 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the only reason is because people subst: the language templates in translation sections, where the link is needed. -- Liliana • 21:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've never understood a need for it either. I don't find linking to language names, even obscure ones, a priority. I'm not saying to remove such links to not to add anymore, but rather with respect to having an automatic link in the template itself, the benefit of removing such links seems to outweigh the benefit of removing the link. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this conversion-deletion should be effected without linking to this section of RFDO from the GP and possibly the BP for greater visibility. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A full BP discussion seems appropriate to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that links have been removed from language templates, this template isn't really needed anymore... —CodeCat 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. So what can the code be simplified to? -- Liliana • 16:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe just its first parameter? It currently contains an #if, but are there any cases where it is called with an empty parameter? —CodeCat 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think is sometimes used with an empty language parameter... -- Liliana • 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by. Note that language template no longer link, so if kept, this template would literally serve no purpose. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)