Template talk:LDL

The language code parameter is great, Msh210! I thought of a solution earlier that does the same thing but saves a little time. Could this be merged into {{head}}? It could be another argument, and it could use the langcode argument to extract the ISO code and save us the trouble. What do you think? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Metaknowledge/scratch has {{LDL}} at the bottom, and I think I like it there (or just beneath the ==Language== header). Putting it between the ===POS=== and the headword would I think be unattractive. If others disagree and want it before the headword, I'm not sure merging it with the headword template is way to go anyway, especially inasmuch as various language-POS combos have specialized headword templates that are more convenient to use (for those terms) than {{head}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought perhaps someone with greater technical knowledge than me wouldbe able to place the box at will, even once merged. Ah well--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we will need {{LDL-sense}} (which I'm calling that after {{rfv-sense}} and similar templates) for when only a sense or several, but not all, are included due to the exemption.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we just use {{rfv}} and {{rfv-sense}} as usual, and note that it's an LDL in its section on RFV? Remember, LDLs almost never crop up on RFV (I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen, to be honest). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think msh210 means we'd use {{LDL-sense}} for e.g. an Äynu word with two senses, one of which was supported by < 3 quotations, but the other of which was supported by 5 quotations. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Probably a good idea, although I'm sure it will be rarely (if ever) used. If {{LDL-sense}} turns up as a bluelink, it means I've made it, and I'll be soliciting your comments. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks, -sche.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)