Template talk:Language

I don't think the ENA link should be conditional. The existence (red-vs-blue link) of the category page is completely independent of whether the category contains any members. In particular, this condition will hide the link even if the category contains some examples just because the category page has not yet been created. Since the membership is automatic with Template:incorrect and so on, I think it is important that the link exist. Of course, it would be better to have a link only if the category contains members, but I don't know how to do that. --Kevin Reid 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right...I'll undo it. --Mwn3d 23:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "execution method" ? (Interpreted, Compiled, Bytecode) --Guga360 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That feature category isn't created yet. It's discussed here. --Mwn3d 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Less functionality?

What happened to the links to unimplemented tasks and examples that need attention? --glennj 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I put those pages in their respective language's categories, but forgot to move their sort order so they would float to the top. Consequently, you can see them listed under "R", for "Reports". The ENA listing was merged into the unimpl page, but the ENA category is a subcategory of the language category, so the ENA category already gets near-top billing. If I could easily turn the "Unimpl" page listings into categories, I would. My intent was to make the descriptive templates more succinct and less redundant. --Michael Mol 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That has the effect of almost completely obscuring them. Consider Tcl, Python and Ruby (top 3 langs) -- more than 200 tasks implemented so the "{language} examples needing attention" subcategory and the "R" tasks don't even show up on the first page. Particularly for Tcl, where one has to scroll past a lot of expository information before the subcategories are displayed.

Also, if we're interested in newcomers picking up unimplemented tasks, we want those tasks to be easily found.

Clearly, I'm not in favour of the change. --glennj 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)