Template talk:l/de

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

Deleted per WT:RFDO:

Template:l/de

Nothin special with it. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep and deprecate; it is now used in too many pages. We need to make the page histories legible. Whoever created this and deployed so widely should have thought twice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Comment; true, the template is being used in 3,800+ pages at this moment. However, a substantial number of those is just verbs with conjugation tables that use {{de-conj}} (used in 3,500+ pages). In the conjugation table, there is a cell named "auxiliary" that links to exactly two words: haben and/or sein, using {{l/de}}. I am going to change it to {{l|de}}, which will reflect in the verbs pages and will not make their page histories unreadable for this reason, since the historical versions will just keep using the {{de-conj}} template. If there are performance issues as suggested below, feel free to revert. If there are not any performance issues, I'd vote delete. --Daniel 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Related to my message above, {{de-form-adj}} is also using {{l/de}} in 230+ pages. I am going to edit the template now to remove {{l/de}}. --Daniel 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    Inflection tables should really use {{l-self}} instead of {{l}} so that forms that are identical to the lemma show up in bold without a link rather than in blue with a link to the same page you're already on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was wrong, there is a specialty - performance. {{l}} calls (1) a module and does some lookup (2) in order to map a language code to a language name, none of which is done byl/xx. Not sure if the overhead is that problematic though. --Dixtosa (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Performance was the entire reason for the existence of all of the l/ templates: at the time, the {{l}} template was causing serious perfomance problems in larger pages. Now that it's been switched over to Lua, that's not as much of an issue, but there are still a few huge index pages where I've swapped out l for l/ templates to fix module errors from overrunning the allowed module-execution time. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
I imagine it could be removed from the main namespace and used only in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Note that these specific templates do not have all the capabilities of {{l}}. For example, they lack gloss parameter.
Also, for only few pages that are {{l}}-intensive we can use {{User:ZxxZxxZ/l-list}}--Dixtosa (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Now unused delete. —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Removing it from the verb-conjugation tables seems to have indeed eliminated most uses; there are now only two. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFD discussion: June 2015–January 2022

See Template talk:l/bg#RFD discussion: June 2015–January 2022.