Template talk:languagex

Template:languagex 2
This has finally been orphaned, it was by far the most used template of all of our language template system. 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RFD-failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:languagex
is already gone, so I think this should go too. There is just one technical barrier... it's needed because some language templates need an extra prefix (conl: or proto:). As part of this deletion request I'd therefore like to rename those templates to remove the prefixes. In other words, and  would become  and. 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's sort of the point, it serves a purpose unless we choose to rename such templates. I think we should discuss that first, then discuss this, so keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but in principle, do you think this template should go? If you recall, failed rfd even when no solution existed for replacing it yet.  11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this template used as well to determine what is a proto language or a constructed language in the first place? -- Liliana • 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is, which is used by some templates besides this one (such as ). It's not affected by this deletion. 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with the presumptions of this proposal. is not needed for language templates with an extra prefix, because that extra prefix should always be supplied by editors. The whole point of those prefixes is to draw a distinction between real, attested language and fake or unattested ones — a distinction which has always enjoyed a strong community consensus.  was part of a campaign by a few editors, including yourself, to make an end-run around that consensus, and try to convert those prefixes into a minor technical detail that editors don't need to worry about, when it's supposed to be a major defining distinction that editors should never lose sight of for a second. I objected at the time; you defended it; now you can live with it. ;-)   —Ruakh TALK 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Always? Like ? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just put into several entries... - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, always, but not like, no: Late Latin is not a language code, etyl: is not a language-code prefix, and is not a language template, but an etyl-template. CodeCat's decision to pretend that etyl-templates are language templates, and to take them as a model for non-mainspace language templates, is part of what got us into this mess. (BTW, I doubt we'd want editors to supply the language prefix as part of the language code; something like lang=proto:ine-pro would be problematic, because then the template still wouldn't know what's going on, and would generate HTML with invalid language codes. Something along the lines of lang=ine-pro|langtype=proto would probably work better.) —Ruakh TALK 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw, I put in those instances of before I saw this discussion. If I should have input the Yolngu etymological information in another way, please let me know. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly what you wanted, it should be just . —Ruakh TALK 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from its use in etymology templates, it's being used in and, so I say we need to keep it at least until someone figures out how to replace it there. —Angr 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)