Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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)
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:{{
wiktionary}} should be moved to {{
dicdef}};{{
wi}} should be moved to {{
wiktionary}}
• Benc
• 10:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
We shouldn't just have this notice on pages. Since when do we decide that there should never be an article with a certain name??? Because that's what that notice basically does. I don't like dicdefs on wikipedia at all, but this is going to the extreme. Dori | Talk 20:10, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Does the current revision make everybody happy? — siro χ o 23:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think this template is very useful and should be encouraged. Rick K 05:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
This is terrible - it makes it very difficult to edit these pages - I fell foul of this once already. Mark Richards 19:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
I reverted back to the version with self references, as it better models a page like this — siro χ o 00:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
This template might provide a link to a wiktionary article that is certain to exist. But we should keep in mind that putting it on the page makes the link to the article blue, when there's in fact no article to read which hurts wikipedia. Also, empty pages provide a link to look up the term in Wiktionary, even if it's not certain the term is there. Wouldn't the right course of action be to simply create the entry at wiktionary, instead of using this template?
Since Wikipedia's goal is to make an encyclopedia, I don't see how this template would help. [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 12:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
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 {{wipar|parameter}}? This would function much like the {{Wiktionarypar}} 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)
I didn't know that this template took an optional parameter (I didn't even know optional parameters were possible!) - so I've created a separate one that does "Widirect". Feel free to TfD it if you think neccessary, but if you do update the WP:SISTER page to let people know about the parameter! Thryduulf 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
...12:43 I am still experimenting with Wikipedia.
I have come to this talk pge for the terming suggested for an Article " Arrivisme" I have go it from Provincial Arrivism, it was the last word in a paregrph in a Documental entry concerning the Albany Convention.
My searching declares it as to arive with conductivity, allthough ism represents more a terming then contuctivity; such as to do and a few more. could we have this article in a == Wording Version ==//user talk D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass David George DeLancey ( talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
After finding the template {{ Wi}} 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.
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
For reference, the current wording of this template is:
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)
Can this template be modified to automatically substitute {{ longcomment}} 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)
To revive an ancient discussion, given the new attention to this template... We pulled off something like this a few years back on a different template.
Template:copyvio (
talk ·
links ·
). In that case we moved the main template code to the new template (
Template:copyviocore (
talk ·
links ·
)) and created a new subst-only wrapper at the original name. So the main change of usage ended up only being the need to subst the existing template. One key difference here, this is a template already existing on many, many pages, all of which would need to be edited (likely by a bot) to reflect the new usage. -
TexasAndroid (
talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Having policy and templates disconnected from each other is never going to fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want the template changed to better reflect the policy then we can discuss it here and then get the admin to update it.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to change the policy you should discuss it on one of the policy talk pages, and then we can update this template afterwards to match it.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
But Having Policy and Templates Disconnected from each other is Never Going to Fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposing: "Remove this message and start an article only after making sure that it has encyclopedic information on the term." -- NeilN talk to me 05:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, Wolfkeeper, would you accept it if the second line said
Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
and nothing more? One way or another, I'm going to have to request unprotection, and I'd like it if we could do it by agreeing to a mutually acceptable wording.-- Father Goose ( talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word. This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.
After coming across a lot of pages that use the {{ wi}} template, it seems WP:AWB likes to suggest changes to them that are really not appropriate, such as orphan templates and the like. I would propose that the template also transclude {{bots|deny=AWB}}, so that these pages are ignored. Suggestions/thoughts? Avic ennasis @ 05:44, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@
Jc86035: I reverted your edit because it broke the template. There was text {{#invoke:Unsubst||$B=
displayed on all pages that transclude it.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 20:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete the pages that this template is transcluded in, and incorporate this into MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Ups and Downs ( ↕) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
I switch this template to use {{ ambox}} designed for notices in the article space over {{ fmbox}} 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 {{ ambox}}. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
For example, DFTT is an acronym and the wiktionary page is likewise ( wikt:DFFT). But {{ Wiktionary redirect}} 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)
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)
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)
Redirect Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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)
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:{{
wiktionary}} should be moved to {{
dicdef}};{{
wi}} should be moved to {{
wiktionary}}
• Benc
• 10:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
We shouldn't just have this notice on pages. Since when do we decide that there should never be an article with a certain name??? Because that's what that notice basically does. I don't like dicdefs on wikipedia at all, but this is going to the extreme. Dori | Talk 20:10, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Does the current revision make everybody happy? — siro χ o 23:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think this template is very useful and should be encouraged. Rick K 05:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
This is terrible - it makes it very difficult to edit these pages - I fell foul of this once already. Mark Richards 19:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
I reverted back to the version with self references, as it better models a page like this — siro χ o 00:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
This template might provide a link to a wiktionary article that is certain to exist. But we should keep in mind that putting it on the page makes the link to the article blue, when there's in fact no article to read which hurts wikipedia. Also, empty pages provide a link to look up the term in Wiktionary, even if it's not certain the term is there. Wouldn't the right course of action be to simply create the entry at wiktionary, instead of using this template?
Since Wikipedia's goal is to make an encyclopedia, I don't see how this template would help. [[User:MacGyverMagic| Mgm| (talk)]] 12:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
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 {{wipar|parameter}}? This would function much like the {{Wiktionarypar}} 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)
I didn't know that this template took an optional parameter (I didn't even know optional parameters were possible!) - so I've created a separate one that does "Widirect". Feel free to TfD it if you think neccessary, but if you do update the WP:SISTER page to let people know about the parameter! Thryduulf 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
...12:43 I am still experimenting with Wikipedia.
I have come to this talk pge for the terming suggested for an Article " Arrivisme" I have go it from Provincial Arrivism, it was the last word in a paregrph in a Documental entry concerning the Albany Convention.
My searching declares it as to arive with conductivity, allthough ism represents more a terming then contuctivity; such as to do and a few more. could we have this article in a == Wording Version ==//user talk D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass David George DeLancey ( talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
After finding the template {{ Wi}} 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.
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
For reference, the current wording of this template is:
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)
Can this template be modified to automatically substitute {{ longcomment}} 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)
To revive an ancient discussion, given the new attention to this template... We pulled off something like this a few years back on a different template.
Template:copyvio (
talk ·
links ·
). In that case we moved the main template code to the new template (
Template:copyviocore (
talk ·
links ·
)) and created a new subst-only wrapper at the original name. So the main change of usage ended up only being the need to subst the existing template. One key difference here, this is a template already existing on many, many pages, all of which would need to be edited (likely by a bot) to reflect the new usage. -
TexasAndroid (
talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Having policy and templates disconnected from each other is never going to fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want the template changed to better reflect the policy then we can discuss it here and then get the admin to update it.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to change the policy you should discuss it on one of the policy talk pages, and then we can update this template afterwards to match it.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
But Having Policy and Templates Disconnected from each other is Never Going to Fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposing: "Remove this message and start an article only after making sure that it has encyclopedic information on the term." -- NeilN talk to me 05:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So, Wolfkeeper, would you accept it if the second line said
Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
and nothing more? One way or another, I'm going to have to request unprotection, and I'd like it if we could do it by agreeing to a mutually acceptable wording.-- Father Goose ( talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word. This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.
After coming across a lot of pages that use the {{ wi}} template, it seems WP:AWB likes to suggest changes to them that are really not appropriate, such as orphan templates and the like. I would propose that the template also transclude {{bots|deny=AWB}}, so that these pages are ignored. Suggestions/thoughts? Avic ennasis @ 05:44, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
@
Jc86035: I reverted your edit because it broke the template. There was text {{#invoke:Unsubst||$B=
displayed on all pages that transclude it.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 20:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete the pages that this template is transcluded in, and incorporate this into MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Ups and Downs ( ↕) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
I switch this template to use {{ ambox}} designed for notices in the article space over {{ fmbox}} 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 {{ ambox}}. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
For example, DFTT is an acronym and the wiktionary page is likewise ( wikt:DFFT). But {{ Wiktionary redirect}} 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)
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)
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)