Template talk:R:pl:Brucker

Any reason why this template should not be replaced in all its occurences by ? is posterior and badly named. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should use Vahagn's template. Per utramque cavernam 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Replaced: no, not really — unless someone wishes to rewrite all pages that currently use this one.
 * Used in the future: only if provides the same features — currently it doesn’t.
 * However, I’ve added a link to in the documentation, so people would consider using it instead of [R:BruckerEtym].
 * What should be done with the misspelling? Is there any way to fix it without just duplicating the template? --  wiki mpan (Talk) 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which feature man? Both templates use, and if anything lacks in one we can put it into the other. Inferring the lemma from the pagename? Everything else is identical in the code.
 * Moving to R:pl:BrucknerEtym would fix. But as it stands it should be redirected to . Fay Freak (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dictionary entry derived from the page name is the feature I need.
 * Moving to  will not break the already existing references, right? --  wiki mpan (Talk) 09:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because when you move you create a redirect at the old place unless you are an administrator and “move without leaving a redirect”. Ever moved a page? Now it is your opportunity (under More near the favorite star if you use the current layout). Fay Freak (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * { I know how redirects work. I don’t know if they are applied to already used templates. --  wiki mpan (Talk) 14:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are, why not. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)