Template talk:Glossary link

This seems to be a bit of overkill. The linking to anchor points in works in the Page: namespace is of little benefit. If we do need to do it, then we would be better to update DJVU page link to do something with anchors rather than yet another link template. What do you see that it is achieving in the Page: namespace? What benefit do you see for the reader? — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose that there is no benefit for the reader. Shall I remove that functionality?
 * I could add anchors to DJVU page link, but can you give me an use case in order to understand what you mean? thanks. — Genesis Bustamante  (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the need for the template, but I am not knowing your planned case usage so keeping an open mind. We have managed perfectly fine with simple chapter and anchor links to this point. If the purpose of the template was to make things work in the Page: namespace, then I don't think that the template is of great value. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the template is to make links from the text of a work to the glossary of that work, and creating an anchor at the same time. Some Glossaries list the pages where a word occurs, and the anchor becomes useful to send you directly to that word. It also aids with other practical features. The purpose is not to have functionality in the Page: namespace, that functionality can be removed because it is only an extra. — Genesis Bustamante  (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)