Template talk:Wiktionary redirect

message: I saw that this was deleted in July 2004 by User:Timwi because "I've added this to MediaWiki:Noarticletext". Clearly that solution is sub-optimal, because the noarticletext says "perhaps" there is an article at Wiktionary. This template is to be used when there is *definitely* an article at Wiktionary. I hope this explains my reasons for undeletion and restoration of the places that used it. Pcb21| Pete 18:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for recreation

message: This is the first I've ever heard of this template, and I really like it (see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect). If the deletion policy is updated to use this template instead of nuking dicdefs: should be moved to ; should be moved to  • Benc • 10:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming

message: This template makes Special:Shortpages less useful since all articles using this template show up on that list. Angela. 01:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
*What is the threshold (Kb)? -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Shortpages]]

message: There needs to be a way to exclude pages with this template on it from appearing on Special:Shortpages and from being counted as articles (all that is needed is a single internal link to be counted as an article; for example Flagrante delicto is counted as an article, which is absurd). These pages also need to be excluded from special:random page, otherwise that function will become useless when/if each Wiktionary entry has a corresponding page with the WI template on it here. At the same time these pages should show up in standard searches. --mav 20:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not so horrible, but not great either

message: Hello. I still consider myself to be a Wikipedia newbie, and I've only used this template once to create a soft redirect but like the current version. Has anyone considered creating a version of this template that accepts a parameter--so something like ? This would function much like the  template. The purpose of such a template would be to allow the editor to link to Wiktionary under something other than PAGENAME. Thanks. Lbbzman 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of where that would be useful?  This template is usedused on page titles that would otherwise be no more than dicdefs.  -- Netoholic @ 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I recently placed the tag on Purlins. The correct Wiktionary article is "purlin" (singular). I suppose I could have created a redirect on Wikipedia from Purlins to Purlin, and then placed the  tag on the new page, but creating a redirect to a soft redirect didn't seem like the right answer. As it stands now, a user clicking on the link in the template will be taken to a search page for the plural form, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Just wondering if wipar makes sense or not. Lbbzman 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the best solution is to just add redirects on Wikipedia from plural to singular, as I've done.  I then added the Wikitionary template to that singular page.  -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This template already takes an optional parameter;  would have done what you wanted. —Cryptic (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know. Thanks, Cryptic. As I mentioned, I still don't have the hang of deciphering templates, so if there isn't clear documentation on the discussion page, it's difficult for me to tell. Thanks again! Lbbzman 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter version of template? 

message: The language of this template was changed in the last couple of months. Does anyone else prefer the older version? I don't think the template should state that an encyclopedia article is not possible (even if it's toned down to some as with Croquant's edit). The previous version seemed sufficient to discourage repeated definition creation. -- JLaTondre 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "because some Wikipedia editors believe such an entry would merely be a dictionary definition" part. There are too many cases where it's possible for an encyclopedia article to be generated, but the current article is merely a dictdef. Having that phrase makes the template unusable in those places. We shouldn't be saying an encyclopedia article is impossible in all cases. -- JLaTondre 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version Wording 

message: I still don't think this template is a good idea. Keeping the MediaWiki:Noarticletext means it also suggests you to look at other Wikimedia projects besides wiktionary. This template takes that away. -Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we all know everyone spends a lot of time checking thoroughly and researching before creating articles, heh. I don't see how this template really hurts anything. --W.marsh 14:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway the point is just to prevent people creating dicdefs again and again independent of eachother. I thought there was a similar template for Wikibooks and Wikisource, but I can't find them at a glance. If they really don't exist, creating them might be a good idea. --W.marsh 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about when a dictdef has never been created there, and likely never will be? Use one's loaf and its redirect Use One's Loaf were newly created just with this template. There is nothing in their deletion logs and no articles link to them. Also, if it is to be properly useful, we should create redirects Use my loaf and Use your loaf (as well as, in the vein of its creation, their various capitalizations), which would be the actual common use of the term rather than the generic. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be a statement limiting its use. —Centrx→talk • 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe a notice that it is appropriate to delete after a brief period of time for orphans and nearly orphaned pages? —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad for Wikibooks and wikisource etc. 

message: I found this phrase clumsy, "you may like to search wiktionary instead", I replaced "like" with "want".  I'm not in love with my current wording, feel free to replace this with something else reasonable if my current wording still isn't the best. --Xyzzyplugh 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "May like to search"?

message: I deleted the following sentence: "If a page is not prone to chronic re-creation, delete the page with this template after a reasonable period of time".  I don't see that we have any consensus that this template shouldn't stay permanently.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, they show up on Random article. A reader should never be sent to a wiktionary redirect. If it is a link used in articles, those generic words should be unlinked (or linked to the proper target), and then the page deleted; new links should not be created thinking there is an article there. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sentence

message: :Can I propose new wording as follows
Wikipedia does not currently have an encyclopedia article for .
You may wish to refer to   on Wiktionary, our sister project for dictionary definitions.
[ Edit this page] to begin an article here, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.	
:Conrad.Irwin 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, though I think the last part should be stronger and more direct: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, do not create a mere dictionary definition here. —Centrx→talk • 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New wording

message: After finding the template  I seem to have made some faulty assumptions see User_talk:Jeepday#Wiktionary_redirects I would like to suggest a rewording of the text for it.
===Current Text===
This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form.
Do not place it on every word!
===Suggested Text===
This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which due to there repeated unencyclopedic creation and deletion are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form.
Do not place it on every word!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 January 2007  (UTC)
:I made the change, slightly abbreviated. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me thanks (remembered to sign this time} Jeepday 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Text 

message: This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which due to there repeated unencyclopedic creation and deletion are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form.
Do not place it on every word!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 January 2007  (UTC)
:I made the change, slightly abbreviated. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me thanks (remembered to sign this time} Jeepday 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Text

message: The wording "do not create a mere dictionary definition" (my emphasis) implies that a full dictionary article, with etymology and usage notes, is acceptable at Wikipedia.  This contradicts WP:WINAD, which says that full dictionary articles go in Wiktionary not Wikipedia.  Propose change to say "please note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Information about specific words and names is usually suitable for Wiktionary."  Or something like that.  Pan Dan 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is technically correct. I changed it a bit so it is more clear, . —Centrx→talk • 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, both "mere(ly)" and "definition" are problematic.  Per WP:WINAD, dictionary articles (i.e. articles appropriate for Wiktionary but not Wikipedia) are neither mere, nor merely definitions.  How about "please do not create a dictionary article" (with a link to WP:WINAD to explain what a dictionary article is).  Pan Dan 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: These are counted as articles in the main namespace, correct? Why shouldn't we just salt these pages instead? It's not that difficult to get to Wiktionary...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases, an actual encyclopedic article could potentially be written. Salting would prevent that from happening. The template is to discourage the recreation of definitions; it is not to prevent valid article creation. -- JLaTondre 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is much more useful to the reader then salting. Sure getting to Wiktionary may be easy if you know it exists, but why make it more difficult? This template is a more reader-friendly alternative to salting, but for a potential actual encyclopedic article, wouldn't a redlink be preferable? A false bluelink would discourage creation, whereas a redlink is a big "create me" sign. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this and soft redirects? 

message: I have started a discussion on soft redirects, and their future on the project, here.  Any input from people knowledable about redirects in general is welcome and encouraged. -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasAndroid (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft redirect discussion 

message: For reference, the current wording of this template is:
:Wikipedia does not currently have an encyclopedia article for Wi. You may want to search Wiktionary for "Wi" instead.
:To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create a dictionary article.
In my experience, this template is normally used when there is consensus (usually at AfD) that there is no way an encyclopedic article with a given title can be written, but it is still considered useful to refer readers to the dictionary definition (in part for the user's convenience, but also to discourage dictionary article creation). Therefore, having a link encouraging readers to create an article, even with disclaimers that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is counterproductive. When it is plausible that an encyclopedic article could be written, this template shouldn't be used--we should have a stub instead. Remember that people can still click in the usual edit link at the top of the page, even if we remove the sentence "To begin an article here...". I propose the following wording: "Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for X. You may want to refer to Wiktionary for a definition of X instead." Note that I removed "currently", because it also seems to encourage the creation of an article here. I also removed "search", because we shouldn't be asking users to search Wiktionary--we should refer them directly to an existing Wiktionary entry instead (this may need some changes to the URL used for linking). --Itub (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am entirely in agreement.  You didn't actually remove the "search" wording, though, so I implemented that.  I went with the wording "You may wish to read Wiktionary's entry on "(subject)" instead."--Father Goose (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this general thrust. There's now some people that think that any article that's 'big enough' is automatically an encyclopedia article. The policy doesn't say that, nor does simple common sense, in fact the policy has always said exactly the opposite.- Wolfkeeper 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of policy is not shared by the community: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_73#WP:DICTIONARY_needs_tweaking.3F --NeilN talk to me 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more that they don't understand or believe that the policy is correct; hey they might be right, but I kinda doubt it. There are explicit bits that say the exact opposite from them, and there's merely a few equivocations that point the other way. But for practical reasons the templates have to be as simple as possible and must reflect the broad sweep of policies, and for ~99.9+% of the articles it's clear that the policy is that The Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. For a very few articles (like maybe fuck for example), it's possibly not right, but for examples where this template is being used, that's rarely an issue.- Wolfkeeper 00:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template should not encourage the creation of articles 

message: Can this template be modified to automatically substitute  into the article upon creation? This would make the template much easier to use, especially because there's now an automatic filter to warn you when creating a small article. Wizard191 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was attempted before, but it broke a bunch of stuff. It's not a bad idea, but it should be implemented at another template name (Wi2?) and should be a subst-only template. It also needs to support the different parameters. --- RockMFR 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you are right, it would make more sense to make it a new template like . It just seems counter intuitive to make the standard usage of the template to include adding two temples. Wizard191 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Wi is a bit of a weird name anyway, probably best to just create another template, like WiLong or something.- Wolfkeeper 22:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic inclusion of {{tl|longcomment}} 

message: I recently added this template to Kemonomimi after a contentious agreement that it was better suited for wiktionary (the addition was made mostly because its very likely given the contentious nature of the move that caused a split in the list as well it would be recreated). However, when I tried to apply the template to get a visually appealing result, it always failed. Right now the soft redirect works, but as you can see, it's far from asetically pleasing.じんない 06:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  better support for transwiki 

message: Please change this template so that it categorizes pages into Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, in order to remove the Article Feedback Tool from Wiktionary redirect pages. --Yair rand (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by User:OlEnglish. --Yair rand (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove AFT 

message: I reverted your edit because it broke the template. There was text  displayed on all pages that transclude it. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Delete the pages that this template is transcluded in, and incorporate this into MediaWiki:Noarticletext.  Ups and Downs (↕) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already done in the article namespace using , but I'm not sure if just deleting the pages is a good idea, since for registered users red links result in the editing window and a different message box ("Before creating an article, please read…"). Jc86035 (talk) Use to reply to me 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is an idea... 

message: Replace WP:WINAD with direct link Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD is a redirect's shortcut to the target page. --2601:646:9280:BA70:F81B:137:871C:645C (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to be changed 

message: I switch this template to use  designed for notices in the article space over  designed for system messages. This message is not a system message, and should not pose as one. It was especially confusing to see a system message saying "there's no article on this, but there's one at Wiktionary". A natural reaction (I know I had it many times) to this message would be "Alright, then let's create an article on this", but nowhere do you have the "create page" option, not are you prompted with the standard search Wikipedia stuff. Hence the switch to . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambox vs fmbox 

message: On mobile view, this template will be classified as "issues" and be hidden by default. This means for the readers, it looks just like an empty page. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementitious (Cementitious).
--fireattack (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this was an untenable situation, completely inaccessible to mobile users. I have "solved" this by using inline CSS styles to make it look the same as  without using the .ambox class itself. I've also made the button to Wiktionary more accessible, for short links it was impossible to find where you should click. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template doesn't work well on mobile view 

message: Hi - I'm a Teahouse volunteer, and another editor posted a feature question at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Idea for a Wikipedia feature about having the Wiktionary definition pop up with a mouseover. They were directed to the Village Pump, which I find a little difficult to search and navigate, so the other editor may be frustrated with it also.  I wonder if it's simpler to ask if anyone here knows if there's an easy way to change the template so it displays the word's definition, or if you can point me to a related discussion, so as to not reinvent the wheel. Thanks in advance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature suggestion 

message: For example, :DFTT is an acronym and the wiktionary page is likewise (:wikt:DFFT). But  on DFFT gives the wiktionary link with the term in all lower-case: "Read the Wiktionary entry on dftt". Why is it displayed with a different capitalization than the enwiki page in which it is displayed? DMacks (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that about wikt searching. Thanks for the explanation, and finding that it wasn't a named parameter, just positional. DMacks (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the wikt link displayed all lower-case? 

message: I've got a technical question: Are mainspace Wiktionary redirects counted in the article count on Main Page? If not, how is it excluded? Deryck C. 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article count 

message: I've just encountered this for the first time, on tapping a "not to be confused with" hatnote pointing to a Wiktionary entry. It was a bit of a shock. What I saw on mobile was basically a full-screen error warning that something was seriously wrong.
Shouldn't it be similar in appearance to an ordinary disambiguation page, but with text mentioning that the entry is on another project? I don't feel that it's usable while it looks like this.
Unless I've misunderstood what it's for, it needs to simply assist users on their way to the right destination without drawing attention to itself, while letting them know that the destination isn't a Wikipedia one. Musiconeologist (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like a major error warning