Template talk:l/pt

[https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others&oldid=48987685#Template:l/...,_Template:link/... Deleted] per WT:RFDO:

Template:l/..., Template:link/...
Full list of templates or redirects named Template:l/... or Template:link/... l/bg - l/bi - l/br - l/ca - l/cs - l/csb - l/cu - l/cu/Cyrl - l/cy - l/da - l/de - l/dsb - l/en - l/es - l/et - l/eu - l/fi - l/fo - l/fr - l/frm - l/fro - l/ga - l/gd - l/gl - l/got - l/grc - l/gv - l/haw - l/he - l/hsb - l/hu - l/it - l/ja - l/ja/Jpan - l/ja/Latn - l/jbo - l/km - l/ko - l/kw - l/la - l/lad - l/lv - l/mi - l/mk - l/mul - l/naq - l/nb - l/nds - l/nl - l/nn - l/no - l/oc - l/pkp - l/pl - l/pmt - l/pt - l/rap - l/ru - l/rue - l/sga - l/sh/Cyrl - l/sh/Latn - l/sk - l/sm - l/sv - l/te - l/to - l/tr - l/tvl - l/ty - l/vi/Hani - l/vi/Latn - l/wa - l/zza link/bg - link/br - link/ca - link/cs - link/csb - link/cu - link/cu/Cyrl - link/cy - link/da - link/de - link/dsb - link/en - link/es - link/et - link/fi - link/fo - link/fr - link/frm - link/fro - link/ga - link/gd - link/gl - link/got - link/grc - link/gv - link/he - link/hsb - link/hu - link/it - link/ja - link/ja/Jpan - link/ja/Latn - link/jbo - link/ko - link/kw - link/la - link/lv - link/mk - link/mul - link/nb - link/nds - link/nl - link/nn - link/no - link/oc - link/pl - link/pt - link/ru - link/rue - link/sga - link/sh/Cyrl - link/sh/Latn - link/sk - link/sv - link/tr - link/vi/Hani - link/vi/Latn - link/wa - link/zza

Proposal: Delete, and the others like those, or delete as many as possible if for some reason some of those should be kept. Full list is collapsed above this message. I did not take the trouble to tag all of those, only German and Latin are tagged.

Rationale: Use | rather than /, that is, rather than. This assumes it does the same thing and that we don't need anymore or  or others to consume less resources on the server like we apparently needed pre-Lua or in case they do something that  can't or some other reason.

Current RFDO discussions:
 * 
 * 

Older discussion:
 * Template talk:l/en

It's worth noting that in the current RFDO discussions some of these templates seem to be treated like obvious crap to be deleted by some people. Quoting from the l/de discussion: "Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call  directly (see  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." --Daniel 01:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete any of these that do not provide any features beyond those available in . Keep any, such as, that do provide special features. --WikiTiki89 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For those of us that don't edit Hebrew entries much, what are the special features of ? --Daniel 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * produces . It is more convenient than redundantly typing . --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that any that are kept should be renamed. Something like . —CodeCat 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Because AFAIK this should start with he- like other Hebrew templates. Note we already have and  with special behavior, namely showing multiple scripts in order and also the Korean one has an auto-transliteration module implemented. "l/" implies subpage of  so I'd argue we should only start a template name with that if its actually part of the system of . --Daniel 11:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is part of the system of . It is implemented with the same module and supports all of the parameters that supports. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I have an idea: can't we nuke with the others and make  support   as an additional parameter? --Daniel 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * makes sense only for Hebrew. DWV = "defective with vowels". It's silly to add language-specific features to a general template. --WikiTiki89 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe we should really add language-specific features to a general template, but that's OK, maybe having the actual language-specific template is really better. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to orphan all these templates at the moment because they are many and while some people are converting from the format of "l/de" to "l|de" others still keep adding new instances in the format of "l/de". (Pending actual diffs, I can get those later.) I was thinking of creating a vote for the whole project of deleting all l/... templates, or at least a BP poll or something to let other people know what is going on and agree upon this. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all templates that were ever relatively widely used. Deprecate them instead. Keep revision histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June 2015–January 2022

 * See Template talk:l/bg.