Template talk:Interlanguage link/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Interlanguage link. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Size and substitution
The other day when I used this template I thought the foreign language links were smaller than the regular text. To day it is not. The version in the sandbox is displaying smaller characters. See: Template:Interlanguage link multi/testcases. Why the change?
See also here:
- Charles Darwin -- Sandbox
- Charles Darwin --Production
Also when I tried to "subst" the production version it does not seem to work as expected:
- {{subst:Interlanguage link multi|Charles Darwin (botanist)|lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin|de|Charles Darwin|es|Charles Darwin}} --Production
- Charles Darwin --Production
-- PBS (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The parentheses are smaller than regular text still, just not that small. The change was made for accessibility. Substitution is working as intended. The template is meant to be substituted once the article has been created; not before. Alakzi (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- when and where was it agreed to increase the size?. Why not substitute aslo it before? Otherwise it make for problems when discussing things like this on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was not discussed; I made a "bold" change with no apparent downside. There's no reason why you'd need to substitute the ILLs in mainspace, and it'd require littering the code with
{{{|safesubst:}}}. Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)- Then please revert you bold size change. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have replied on this talk page, but have not yet altered the text size. If you do not do so I will revert you bold edit. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Ill}}, which now transcludes this template, had regular-size text; this seemed like a fairer compromise and is - self-evidently - more readable than the original. But if you'd rather wikilawyer than discuss any of the issues, that's fine too. Alakzi (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have been discussing the issues. In this case which is preferable is a matter of opinion. As you made a change that altered how it looks visually, I do not think it is unreasonable for you to leave the visual appearance as it was until there is an agreement to change it. I think that if italic is to be included it ought to be an option because I do not think it is an improvement on the non-italic font. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, what you've been doing is interrogating me; it is not quite what I'd call "discussing the issues". You've now asserted italics is not an improvement, but you've not offered the tiniest bit of explanation as to why. We can't continue along this path. We're not going to add a bunch of useless stylistic switches; either it'll be in italics, or it won't be. Alakzi (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will reply in the previous section as this has has moved away from Size and substitution. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, what you've been doing is interrogating me; it is not quite what I'd call "discussing the issues". You've now asserted italics is not an improvement, but you've not offered the tiniest bit of explanation as to why. We can't continue along this path. We're not going to add a bunch of useless stylistic switches; either it'll be in italics, or it won't be. Alakzi (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have been discussing the issues. In this case which is preferable is a matter of opinion. As you made a change that altered how it looks visually, I do not think it is unreasonable for you to leave the visual appearance as it was until there is an agreement to change it. I think that if italic is to be included it ought to be an option because I do not think it is an improvement on the non-italic font. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- {{Ill}}, which now transcludes this template, had regular-size text; this seemed like a fairer compromise and is - self-evidently - more readable than the original. But if you'd rather wikilawyer than discuss any of the issues, that's fine too. Alakzi (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have replied on this talk page, but have not yet altered the text size. If you do not do so I will revert you bold edit. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then please revert you bold size change. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was not discussed; I made a "bold" change with no apparent downside. There's no reason why you'd need to substitute the ILLs in mainspace, and it'd require littering the code with
- when and where was it agreed to increase the size?. Why not substitute aslo it before? Otherwise it make for problems when discussing things like this on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jc86035 As your code in the sandbox can easily be substituted. Is there any reason it can not be made the production one? What if any are the disadvantages of it? -- PBS (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The disadvantage of it is that the template code is also substituted. Alakzi (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- As the sandbox and the current versions are
notsynchronised, I can now start testing the changes I wish to make (these will not affect the current visual look of this template with the default setting). -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)- The live version is newer. It can't be terribly difficult to copy the code over to the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry a mistake (I have struck through the offending word). I have also put a new version of the code with changes into the sandbox -- PBS (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- The live version is newer. It can't be terribly difficult to copy the code over to the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- As the sandbox and the current versions are
A problem with missing spaces
Here are two entries the difference being that the "en" link is to Charles Darwin (botanist) and to Charles Darwin
- {{Interlanguage link multi|Charles Darwin (botanist)|lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin|de|Charles Darwin|es|Charles Darwin}}
- {{Interlanguage link multi|Charles Darwin |lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin|de|Charles Darwin|es|Charles Darwin}}
- Number 1,a Charles Darwin
was interested in
- Number 2,a Charles Darwin
was interested in
In cases "a" everything works as expected.
- Number 1,b Charles Darwin
- Number 2,b Charles Darwin
In this case "1,b" works as expected but in the second one ("2,b") the word dogs appears to be concatenated onto the end of the bullet point with no spaces (although it is actually on the next line as in example "Number 2,a")
Number 1,c Charles Darwin dogs
Number 2,c Charles Darwin dogs
In this last pair (numbers 1,c and 2,c) the word dogs is on the same line as the template, and the space remains in both cases.
Has anyone any ideas what is causing the white spaces to be eaten in example "Number 2.b"?
-- PBS (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be caused by the tracking category inserted by the else condition. It would appear the parser consumes the newline where it's preceded by a category.
* [[Charles Darwin]] [[dog]]s |
|
* [[Charles Darwin]][[Category:Interlanguage link template existing link]] [[dog]]s |
Alakzi (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but it is not consuming the new-line if the new-line is followed by ordinary text (as in example "2,a").-- PBS (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a
<nowiki />after the category, which seems to have fixed it. Alakzi (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)- Well done for finding a fix. But it looks like a hack there as are now two end
<nowiki />and no open<nowiki>. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)- What do you mean? Where are there two? Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a snippet from the other place in the code:
{{#if:{{{reasonator|}}}|<nowiki />;-- PBS (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)- @PBS: Aren't they just empty tags and not end tags? Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean but don't they usually come in pairs? -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a void element and is syntactically valid. End tags are in the form of
</nowiki>(notice the slash placement). Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for the information, I have never used it and just assumed it was being used as an alternative to </nowiki>. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a void element and is syntactically valid. End tags are in the form of
- I am not sure what you mean but don't they usually come in pairs? -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS: Aren't they just empty tags and not end tags? Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a snippet from the other place in the code:
- What do you mean? Where are there two? Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well done for finding a fix. But it looks like a hack there as are now two end
- I've added a
The display parameter
Apart from the template template:Interlanguage link forced (which has no parameters) and internally now uses "-preserve" is there any other old template that use either "display" or "preserve"?
This is an unusual use of "display" as "display" parameter is usually used in templates to display alternative names as is done in this template with the "lt" parameter. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The nobold parameter
The parameter nobold does not currently seem to do anything. Before the merge started was there a nobold option in any of the templates (or for that matter a "bold" one)? -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
|nobold=is documented here. It appears to be unused, and unless somebody can explain why it's needed, it should be removed. Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)- @Alakzi and PBS: It was added by User:Zyxw to {{Ill}} in September 2013 and seems to have been used only by them on the five articles that the search page links to. However, I'm not sure that it definitely needs to be removed, since it's useful for edge cases like those five articles and it's relatively harmless. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot {{Ill}} uses this template now there for a moment. Alakzi (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It does not currently seem to be working for those five examples. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is; the interlanguage links are not in bold. Alakzi (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- ah! of course! I was just looking at the linked name, which if I had thought about it a little more, comes before the setting so consequently can not be affected by "nobold". -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I vote for removing it, because every option that makes the template more complex is a minus. Also, arguably it shouldn't exist because the only purpose in the five listed examples was to defeat the default bold font of one part of a table header. Defeating a default font also adds one little bit of visual complexity (why that bit? the reader will ask), which is also a minus. Let's get rid of this. Editors should just concentrate on content and leave the visual styling up to the style definitions. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- ah! of course! I was just looking at the linked name, which if I had thought about it a little more, comes before the setting so consequently can not be affected by "nobold". -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is; the interlanguage links are not in bold. Alakzi (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- It does not currently seem to be working for those five examples. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot {{Ill}} uses this template now there for a moment. Alakzi (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi and PBS: It was added by User:Zyxw to {{Ill}} in September 2013 and seems to have been used only by them on the five articles that the search page links to. However, I'm not sure that it definitely needs to be removed, since it's useful for edge cases like those five articles and it's relatively harmless. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Superscript
@user:Alakzi and user:Jc86035 I was going to play around in the sand box and add an option to use superscript, but I see that there is a new radically different version currently under development in the sandbox so I have not altered it. Anyway what I wanted to test is from HTML element#sub:
<sub>...</sub>
and <sup>...</sup>
- Mark subscript or superscript text. (Equivalent CSS:
{vertical-align: sub}or{vertical-align: super}.)
by adding a named parameter called "sup" (or "super" -- I am not fussed). This would be set as the default in {{Interlanguage link}}. As some might prefer it if the language indicator was subscripted, that can be added at the same time. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds rather unconventional. Has it been discussed before, and is there a precedent to using superscript for any purpose, bar footnote anchors and inline maintenance tags? Alakzi (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- This whole template is unconventional! Yes it has, see template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki. Superscript is used in approximately 70,000 articles, I don't know how many are not footnotes or inline maintenance tags (but there are three instances in the first 20 which if a fair sample is about 1 in 7 or about 10,000 articles), and anyway this is an inline maintenance tag! Besides until the merge template:Link-interwiki used superscripts (transclusion count of 832). -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, it is used in scientific notation; I meant for our purposes. This is as much a maintenance tag as it is a navigational aid, though, isn't it? Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- You ask and I answered you specific question. Besides one of the links provide in the first 20 pages is to uk which would still mean about 3,000 articles, and there are the other 800 which have been removed because the functionality does not exist in this template. I do not see this template as primarily a navigation aid, because if it were, then it would have to go into external links per the various guidelines on external links being placed inside articles. That guidance is one of two reasons why placing a another wiki link in place of a red link is discouraged, the other being that editors are unlikely to realise there is a missing article unless they happen to click on it. The whole point of these templates is to temporarily fill in holes in en.wikipedia, and given that most readers will not be able to read the foreign language links, their primary use is as an editor to editor message and therefore a maintenance issue (just like template:Disambiguation needed). If I were to see this template displayed when a a blue link existed to a en.wikipedia article (because of the display=1 parameter) I would remove it and justify doing so with WP:Layout#Links to sister projects, because if a person wishes to read the foreign language version of an article they can click on the blue link and then on the appropriate language.
- I agree, some of these other options are unnecessary, including
|display=. I tend to think of the parenthetical interlanguage links as cross-referential editorial notes. I think you underestimate their navigational utility: you do not need to be a speaker of a foreign language to be able to extract some key facts, which is made especially easy by infoboxes. In addition, some browsers (like Chrome) will offer to translate the page. I'm opposed to adding an option for superscript. You've not put forward any use cases of each, so I shall assume that their use boils down to editor preference; therefore, either superscript should be the default, or it should not be part of the template at all. Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)- Notice that the examples in "cross-referential editorial notes" are to en.wikipedia, there is a very long prohibition to linking to external websites in the main body of the text, with the exception of dictionary and source (I know because I had to argue long and hard to have those two exceptions included in WP:LAYOUT). Your argument the "think you underestimate their navigational utility" could also be used to justify including any external link in the main body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, some of these other options are unnecessary, including
- You ask and I answered you specific question. Besides one of the links provide in the first 20 pages is to uk which would still mean about 3,000 articles, and there are the other 800 which have been removed because the functionality does not exist in this template. I do not see this template as primarily a navigation aid, because if it were, then it would have to go into external links per the various guidelines on external links being placed inside articles. That guidance is one of two reasons why placing a another wiki link in place of a red link is discouraged, the other being that editors are unlikely to realise there is a missing article unless they happen to click on it. The whole point of these templates is to temporarily fill in holes in en.wikipedia, and given that most readers will not be able to read the foreign language links, their primary use is as an editor to editor message and therefore a maintenance issue (just like template:Disambiguation needed). If I were to see this template displayed when a a blue link existed to a en.wikipedia article (because of the display=1 parameter) I would remove it and justify doing so with WP:Layout#Links to sister projects, because if a person wishes to read the foreign language version of an article they can click on the blue link and then on the appropriate language.
- Well, yes, it is used in scientific notation; I meant for our purposes. This is as much a maintenance tag as it is a navigational aid, though, isn't it? Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- This whole template is unconventional! Yes it has, see template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki. Superscript is used in approximately 70,000 articles, I don't know how many are not footnotes or inline maintenance tags (but there are three instances in the first 20 which if a fair sample is about 1 in 7 or about 10,000 articles), and anyway this is an inline maintenance tag! Besides until the merge template:Link-interwiki used superscripts (transclusion count of 832). -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: apparently not; the superscript was added by an IP who was apparently unsatisfied with there being no space between the red link and the brackets due to a coding error. This change has been copied to 20 other wikis. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not asking anyone to code this for me (I intend to add the functionality here), but in this template I was not intending to default it on, but I am asking which is intended to be the stable version. The one currently in production or the one in the sandbox (as I do not want to zap the sandbox if it is intended to add it to production)? -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- "either superscript should be the default, or it should not be part of the template at all." Why should it not be a parameter option, particularly as it was the default in one of the templates which is being merged into this one, and the majority of people who have expressed an opinion in template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki have asked for it? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because such an option would not offer utility, and - hopefully - we can come to agree that one is better than the other. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- A parameter will offer a utility, as it allows editors to choose how they want to display the links. Forcing one size fits all when there is clearly a difference of opinion is is not desirable and surly if the integration of the different templates is to be done correctly then their original look ought to be avaible by default. -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because such an option would not offer utility, and - hopefully - we can come to agree that one is better than the other. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- "either superscript should be the default, or it should not be part of the template at all." Why should it not be a parameter option, particularly as it was the default in one of the templates which is being merged into this one, and the majority of people who have expressed an opinion in template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki have asked for it? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not asking anyone to code this for me (I intend to add the functionality here), but in this template I was not intending to default it on, but I am asking which is intended to be the stable version. The one currently in production or the one in the sandbox (as I do not want to zap the sandbox if it is intended to add it to production)? -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea if italic is better or worse than non italic. It is primarily a style issue and a matter of taste. At the moment only two of us have expressed an opinion one way or the other. This is to a large enough sample to come to a consensus (even if we agreed). The simplest solution to creating a consensus is to put in switches and let the editors who use the template. After a year or so the usage can be reviewed and if any particular combination is particularly prevalent then that can be made the default. If it turns out that some options are never used then there is no reason that they can not be deprecated. On the down side, switches complicate the look of the code; however compared to what is already in the code the additions to allow a few parameters are relatively minor. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have re-added italic as an option and I have added a new option for vertical-alignment. The latter will allow an option that already existed in one of the merged templates and I think is desirable in another. Test examples exist in Template:Interlanguage_link_multi/testcases, for those who want to see look and feel. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where might consensus for these changes be found? Alakzi (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- A response is not forthcoming, so I've made some minor markup and style adjustments and removed the italics option nobody's asked for. Alakzi (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Waiting just over 2 hours for a response on a world wide project is asking a lot. I think that the very minimum that is reasonable is 24 hours. I thought you were the person who suggested italic and encoded italic. It does little harm to have it in the code (I just thought it a bad idea to default it), but if you want to remove it I am not going to reinstate it. As for the other change see above. -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe so, but you've incorporated a feature I've been opposed to - you should stick around to hear my complaints. ;-) Anyway, let's just roll with it. Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi and PBS: I don't really think there should be a
vertical-alignoption, since it doesn't actually do anything useful; all other parameters have some utility to them. It just makes the template more complicated than it needs to be. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)- It does do something useful, it alters the appearance of the template, it has been a feature for may years in some of the merged templates, and a number of editors (including me) prefer the it. If you follow you line of thought about simplification then we may as well go back to the Revision on 3 April. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS: I don't think any of the templates had the option to change the alignment before the merger, did they? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is not really the point because if you are going to combine templates that have different capabilities then you need to code for that. There are four options:
- Go back to pre merge templates, and develop them further independently.
- Leave out functions an only code to the minimum. IE simply go back to Revision on 3 April
- Include the functionality but do not document it, instead let different templates display different aspects
- Include the functionality and document it. Different templates may have different defaults, but editors can have access to different facets.
- I don't see for example why you think it ok to include "unbold" and "forcing" (let alone exotic options such as reasonator) as options, while wishing to suppress visual-alignment for which several editors have expressed as a preference. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is not really the point because if you are going to combine templates that have different capabilities then you need to code for that. There are four options:
- @PBS: I don't think any of the templates had the option to change the alignment before the merger, did they? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- It does do something useful, it alters the appearance of the template, it has been a feature for may years in some of the merged templates, and a number of editors (including me) prefer the it. If you follow you line of thought about simplification then we may as well go back to the Revision on 3 April. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi and PBS: I don't really think there should be a
- Yes, maybe so, but you've incorporated a feature I've been opposed to - you should stick around to hear my complaints. ;-) Anyway, let's just roll with it. Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Waiting just over 2 hours for a response on a world wide project is asking a lot. I think that the very minimum that is reasonable is 24 hours. I thought you were the person who suggested italic and encoded italic. It does little harm to have it in the code (I just thought it a bad idea to default it), but if you want to remove it I am not going to reinstate it. As for the other change see above. -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- A response is not forthcoming, so I've made some minor markup and style adjustments and removed the italics option nobody's asked for. Alakzi (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Where might consensus for these changes be found? Alakzi (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
After complaining about the vertical-align option at Template_talk:Interlanguage_link#Synchronize_with_template:Link-interwiki, I was informed about the discussion here, so I will copy my complaint, as follows.
I don't think that the appearance of the template is something that should be parameterized. It should have a standard appearance, instead of varying just because individual editors think super or subscript looks better. What are readers supposed to make of that variation? Is it supposed to mean something?
I don't really care how it's displayed, as long as it's consistent and accessible (individual language codes, when there are more than one, should be legible and individually clickable on a smartphone). The same function should always be displayed in the same way. This is a very basic principle of interface design. So I propose that this option be abolished. Choose whichever method you like, but only one. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have been busy using the templates in various new articles about the Battle of Waterloo. To you argument about "It should have a standard appearance" while there is consensus in the MOSS that there should be consistency within articles there in no consensus that there should be consistency across Wikipedia (otherwise one would have colour
speltspelled color everywhere (see WP:ARTCON). There is general agreement that there should be no sister links in the body of the text unless they are either links to Wiktionary or wikisource (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). So if there is to be only one style I would suggest that it ought to be superscript so that the template output looks like other maintenance templates. But I recognise that some editors may prefer keep the style that is the current default. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Blue link with interlanguage link(s)
There's a behaviour that wasn't documented. If it's intentional I'd suggest it be documented permanently; if not, the behaviour should be changed. I added the following to the documentation:
As of February 2016[update] if there is a redirect for the term in English Wikipedia, both the redirected (blue) link and interlanguage link(s) are displayed. English "Casa" redirects to "CASA":
{{illm|casa|es||it||ro||de|haus}}displays and links as casa
If this is intended behaviour, not subject to change, it could be used in some cases to force interlanguage links to existing articles with redirects:
{{illm|Obama|es||it||ro||de||lt=Barack Obama}} ==> Barack Obama
{{illm|Barack Obama|es||it||ro||de}} ==> Barack Obama
Pol098 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Parameter trailing space does not appear to be stripped
I noticed that the template does not strip a trailing space (or leading) from the language code or article name parameters before formatting them for display. (I did not test other parameters.) I have the impression that many editors add a trailing space to parameters to improve readability and ease of editing of templates in the edit window. Most templates seem to remove trailing spaces. Would it be a good idea to add that behavior to this one? [Actually I was using Template:Interlanguage link. Maybe I should have left this comment there?] --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)