Module talk:languages/stable

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Module talk:languages/stable. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Module talk:languages/stable, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Module talk:languages/stable in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Module talk:languages/stable you have here. The definition of the word Module talk:languages/stable will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofModule talk:languages/stable, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

RFDO discussion: September 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


This was created to hold languages whose information would be unlikely to change over time. But it hasn't been used yet, and I think it's more practical to leave things as they are:

  1. By using this module, looking up a language's data means loading two modules instead of just one. First the stable module has to be checked, before looking in the regular module. This actually makes things a bit slower rather than faster.
  2. It's easier for users to find the data if they can predict where it is. Right now we sort them by the number of characters in the code, and the first letter of the code. This is pretty straightforward and putting certain codes in the stable module would only complicate it.

I'm not sure if the advantages (if there even are any) are worth the extra complexity. —CodeCat 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree, delete. It has turned out that modifying widely used modules such as Module:languages is not as expensive as we had thought. --WikiTiki89 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

DeletedCodeCat 22:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply