Template talk:tnv

To quote Ethnologue, "90% intelligibility of Chakma [ccp]". Looks like a dialect to me; I can't get any data on whether it's written in the same idiosyncratic script, though. If not, it might be easier in the future to separate them. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing deletion of the template only or a change in how we treat the lect? If the former, how would that work technically? And if the latter, it should be in the BP, not here. (Same for Shelta, above.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A dedicated page for "Requests to change the treatment of lects" might be useful... I have noticed that our discussions are spread out across three pages. When I want to merge lects+codes+templates, I usually post on WT:RFM (the page for merging things), which there's precedent for. Metaknowledge posts here on WT:RFDO (the page for deleting templates), which there's precedent for. On occasion, people post in the BP. The majority of discussions take place on WT:RFM, in part because I am the most prolific starter of them. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see further conversation on this topic below at [[]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

= March 2013 =
 * Kept for no consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)