Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:pld. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:pld, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:pld in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:pld you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:pld will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:pld, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
The lect, obviously. And this actually is right place to do it. Lurk moar.
Anyway, delete. I can't believe that we actually have a code for this, it's really an embarrassment to the project to have a code for every random cool slang lexicon (I mean, this one is pretty cool, although I somehow doubt that very much of it is citable). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I lurk on this page some, and have noticed such nominations in the past, and always meant to protest, but never did until now for some reason unknown to even me. (Fwiw, the earliest still on this page dates to June 2011 (]); there may possibly have been an earlier one already archived (though I doubt it). So) I'll grant you there's precedent for discussing it here: but I still think it's the improper place. This page is for deletion of pages, not for how to handle languages, which is a policy issue and thus belongs in the BP.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for my rudeness above (and happy Purim). I strongly disagree, because putting more stuff that most of the community doesn't care about in the BP and clogging it up is the wrong way to handle this, IMO. I think (did -sche suggest this already? I think so) that a new page for treatment of lects would be welcome, but using RFM works fine, and I'm willing to switch my posts over there, not that it makes any difference. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
You weren't overly rude, and apology accepted. And a happy Purim to you, too, if you celebrate it. (Otherwise, just a happy day.) I actually have no objection to having the discussions here, or at RFM, or wherever, if that's what the community decides, but since unless and until that happens they should be at the default place for policy discussions, which is BP (or languages' About pages). How about this: I'll (or you can) head on over to the BP now and post "People have been, for some time now, posting requests for language mergers to RFM and RFDO even though they're technically policy requests. This post is to notify BP-watchers of that fact and to make sure there's no objection. In order to consolidate the requests, they will henceforth be only at" — and finish that sentence with "RFM", "RFDO", or a reference to some new page. Sound reasonable? How shall we finish the sentence?—msh210℠ (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't really care enough; you can post if you so wish and feel free to finish the sentence with "RFM", just because I think perhaps a new page isn't a good idea. It's a bit shady to have a special, less-frequented page for lect splitting and merging, which if nothing else could gain us bad press. But -sche really ought to get the final word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I use RFM because that one page can handle all types of language-treatment change requests: (a) it handles mergers, which result in the deletion of a language code, but unlike RFD it requires people to think about what L2 foo’s entries will come to use (be merged into) when Template:foo is deleted, (b) it handles rename requests, if a lect we call Fooian should be called Fooic, or a template we call aus-syd newly has an ISO code xdk, and (c) it handles splits of language/dialect clusters into separate lects.
I would still use, and have used, the BP for potentially controversial language changes: things like the merger of Romanian and Moldavian, which is at least politically (though not linguistically) controversial, as distinct from things like the rename of Dharug, where if a majority of other users had favoured Dharuk the result would have been "OK, let's not rename it", with no long or acrimonious debate. But as Metaknowledge noted, most of the many discussions that take place are of no interest to the community at large, and would only clutter the BP. - -sche(discuss)21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
