Talk:Cousin german

Soft redirect
From the history of the page: -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 21:41, 3 September 2015‎ PBS (There is no mention in the cousin article and it is better this is a soft redirect to Wiktionary:cousin-german)
 * 21:53, 3 September 2015‎ TexasAndroid (Change to wiktionary-specific template)
 * 4 September 2015‎ PBS (If I had thought the other template better I would have used it! Dictionary definitions are inappropriate for Wikepidia, so it is inappropriate to use a template that suggests it.)
 * 13:02, 4 September 2015‎ TexasAndroid (Add long comment to move down the Short Pages list. Also, please respond on the talk page over the issue of which template is appropriate.)

All other soft redirects to Wiktionary use the Wiktionary template. That is the appropriate template for soft redirects to Wiktionary. Why is your one redirect different from every other redirect to Wiktionary?

If the "dictionary' template is inappropriate, then how the heck is it appropriate to point to a dictionary in the first place? If the redirect is appropriate, then using the proper form of the template would be appropriate, I would think.

Also, in general, very few pages actually use the generic soft redirect template. Check out Category:Wikipedia soft redirects. The vast majority of soft redirects are not in that category directly, but are rather down in one of the sub-categories, because they use one of the more specific templates that are more appropriate than the generic template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The advantage of Soft redirect is that it makes it easy to see and to cut and past the necessary code to be included in an article bypassing this soft redirect. wiktionary redirect offers no such advantage and the instructions it gives are inappropriate for a word that properly belongs in Wiktionary. As to the categories add any that you think are necessary. -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. And why is your case in the slightest different from the rest of the 1200+ existing Wiktionary redirects that use the appropriate Wiktionary soft redirect?  I do not see anything about what you are saying that makes your case the slightest bit different.  Maybe your arguments should point towards changes in the Wiktionary redirect, but I do not see how they get to the point that your one article has something unique about that means that it should not use the same redirect as all the other soft redirects to Wiktionary.
 * Categories are added by the appropriate redirects. Adding differnt categories just to get around the improper use of the generic redirect is a unnecessary hack in the extreme.  And there's no way to get it out of the root soft redirect category anyway if it is using the wrong template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you suggest is one way forward (for example I notice that the most recent substantial edit to wiktionary redirect was less than a month ago, and while I could put that argument there, as this is a specific instance I am interested in I am not sure I want to be embroiled in an ever longer debate there. BTW the current addition to wiktionary redirect is a breach of Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I
پیشنهاد میکنم حتما دانلود کنید Mza..8741 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

سلام لطفا به من کمک کنید
سلام پیشنهاد میکنم حتما دانلود کنید و به همه هم پیشنهاد بدید Mza..8741 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)