Template talk:ll

RFD discussion: December 2016–August 2020

The following information passed a request for deletion (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.

---

Template:ll

This is unused and very much redundant to {{l}}, which does the same thing but includes the proper formatting. —CodeCat 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep. See the previous discussion at User talk:Wikitiki89/2014#Template:ll for my opinion on this. Nothing's changed since then. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And your argument is as convincing now as it was then. I still see no added benefit of this template, it provides no extra functions that {{l}} doesn't already. —CodeCat 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. As I've already said in the discussion I linked, it provides the option of not including formatting, such as if the formatting is already provided outside of the template. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The number of transclusions of the template shows how useful that is, I suppose. —CodeCat 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep removing them. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that I am able to, is evidence that the template is not necessary. —CodeCat 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've read the discussion linked to above and I still don't see the point of this template. What formatting does {{l}} provide that {{ll}} doesn't, that one might want to exclude? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  All of the language and script formatting. Look carefully at the examples in the linked discussion for why that formatting might need to be excluded. --WikiTiki89 21:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, or keep and rename. (I'm not sure what "ll" stands for here.) I wasn't aware there was a template to simply link to a language's section of an entry on a word (or a {{senseid}} anchor) without adding spans with language attributes and transliteration. I thought this function would be useful in quotes that use unusual terms (or terms that have several meanings, and you want to link to the particular one that is relevant). It is unsatisfactory to use {{l}}, which adds a lot of unnecessary formatting.

If you are linking an Arabic term in an Arabic quote or example phrase or sentence, you do not want to add a whole nother <span lang="ar" xml:lang="ar"></span> to every one of the words that you want to link, when the text already has that formatting applied to the entire quote or example. It makes the HTML terribly messy. So there needs to be a template that just links and does nothing else.

A simple wikilink would work in many cases, but not those in which the term has several meanings. In that case, having the |id= parameter allows you to link to the applicable meaning of the word in the quote or example. You can't do that unless you want to manually type #langname-senseid after the pagename. It is far easier to have a template with an |id= parameter that can be used in the middle of a quote or example. — Eru·tuon 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the practice of linking terms in quotations is discouraged. —CodeCat 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so that is not an acceptable use of the template. However, I have just found a use for the template in the headword of عَبْد (ʕabd), where the feminine form أَمَة (ʔama) needs an id to direct it to the correct vowelization. Using {{l}} gives bad output. Only {{ll}} works. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now replaced it with {{l}}, and it works fine. There's yet to be a compelling argument for the template. Messy HTML is not a compelling argument; have you ever seen what MediaWiki itself generates at times? —CodeCat 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: I second this being deleted. I don't see any exceptional use for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep {{l|mul}} does not work properly with Firefox, though it does work with Chrome and Edge. See User:DCDuring/FontsizeProblemDemo for an instance with some comparisons. {{ll|mul}} works fine. DCDuring (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I've got Firefox 66 and don't see the font size difference. I wonder what is making there be a difference in your Firefox. — Eru·tuon 20:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same problem I mentioned before. I just updated to FF 66.0.5, from the Mozilla site, and I still have the problem on both my tower and my laptop, both running Windows 10 Version 1803 up to date through earlier today, last update installed 4/9. I've got Windows font scaling at default (100%) with "Advanced scaling settings" disabled. I don't think there's anything in my custom css. The problem is not limited to lang=mul. I thought it might have something to do with Latf, the font size for which is set at 125%. I can upload (or e-mail?) you a screenshot. The screenshot shots display 1 and 5 the same size, about 10% wider than the other three. Using {{ll}} or no template at all solves the problem. The only reason I would use {{ll}} is to preserve tabbed languages functionality, which matters because there are at least Latin and German L2 section headwords that actually or potentially duplicate taxonomic L2 headwords. DCDuring (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kept as widely used and not breaking anything --Java Beauty (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)