Template talk:Wiktionary/Archive 1

Merge
Could maybe every article with this tag also be marked as merged? [Template:Mergeto|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mergeto] because of [] I know merging is with sister project, but I feel it is right. contact me for discussion, sorry I am bad with wikicode -- :D --Frederika Eilers (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you idea. Do you mean a moving (merging) Wikipedia article to the Wiktionary entry? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Documentation
This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopaedic content.

Usage:
 * 1)    - provides a search link to the Wiktionary page, using the current page's name. Important: Check the link before using this method, as Wiktionary uses proper capitalization for its entries, unlike Wikipedia's uppercased first letter or page name.
 * 2)    - provides a link to the Wiktionary page for the given word, "sophisticated" in this example
 * 3)    - provides a link to a specific Wikitionary page (1st parameter) and an optional display name (2nd parameter)

See also:
 * undefined
 * wiktionarypar
 * wiktionarycat
 * TWCleanup
 * Copy to Wiktionary
 * Wi
 * Sister projects for full usage information

Discussion

 * Regarding List of templates see Wikipedia talk:List of lists. Gangleri | [ Th] | T 15:46, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * I think Netoholic has a point here - why include template Sisterproject in this template, except when subst'ing it? Radiant_* 13:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

wiktionarypar
Template:Wiktionarypar is a variant on this template that takes the word to reference as the parameter. This template is consistent with, et al., on the other wikis. --Quuxplusone 01:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uncapitalization on wt makes this template redundant.
The uncapitalization on wt means that foo and Foo are different pages. This takes the page name, which is always capitalised. I suggest a bot to replace template:wiktionary with template:wiktionarypar? Dunc|&#9786; 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a 'bot would be appropriate, as some articles would need to link to the uppercase word whilst other articles would need to link to the lowercase word. A human will have to decide for each individual article.  Uncle G 13:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But the bot could look at the WT entry and decide if the main entry for it is capitalised or not. Dunc|&#9786; 13:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not reliable. Not all words at Wiktionary are yet at their correct capitalizations, subsequent to the 'bot that ran immediately after the switchover and that moved all entries to lowercase.  Several Wiktionarians are still working hard to remedy this.  Moreover, we will need a new template (Wiktionarypar2, perhaps), for the cases where Wikipedia actually needs to link to both the uppercase and the lowercase words. Melody is such a case, for example.  Uncle G 13:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay, WT is in a state of transition right now but this ought to be done in the future when it's up to speed. Dunc|&#9786; 13:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed this template to link to Special:Search/PAGENAME since that will assist with any case-sensitivity. It's slightly less reliable (gives search results rather than go directly if there are two articles with the same letter pattern) and is useless if the search function ever gets disabled due to traffic (rare).  Other than that, it's a good solution.  I'm going to do the same for the other Wiktionary template, once people have tried it out on here. P.S. Wiktionarypar2 is unneeded... just use two Wiktionarypar's. -- Netoholic @ 15:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a bad solution. Please don't make any such change to the template.  Pointing directly at the correctly capitalized articles is the way to go, as discussed both here and on the Village Pump.  Turning all interwiki links into database searches is unnecessary overhead.  Moreover, using two Wiktionarypars instead of Wiktionarypar2 is another poor solution, too.  There are cases where I've placed two Wiktionary boxes on a page, but they are rare exceptions, and not the rule. Uncle G 16:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Replacing wiktionary with wiktionarypar
Uncle G - I understand that the link to Special:Search isn't ideal, but it's fine as an interim solution. I just don't think we should go off immediately replacing templates on all these pages, and my change will work for the time being while we make a plan. Here is my main concern with your replacements... you are moving us away from {wiktionary} to {wiktionarypar} with the intent of eventually orphaning {wiktionary}. The problem is that "wiktionary" is the best name if we only have the one style template. -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't need to make a plan. We have a plan.  Replace Wiktionary with Wiktionarypar (or Wiktionarypar2 or Wiktionarypar3).  It's the plan that was mentioned on the Village Pump, and it's the plan that was mentioned here.  Given that Paul G, Duncharris and myself all appear to have come to the same conclusion independently, it would seem to be the obvious plan, too.  The only actual question about the plan was whether a 'bot should do it.  I think that a 'bot won't do, and won't be able to do, the right thing, and that it requires a human to actually think about the links and make the appropriate fixes.  (AI actually should link to three Wiktionary articles, although originally it was only linking to two, for example.)  I'm happy to make the changes by hand and to scrutinize each article individually.  I fail to see what your problem with orphaning "wiktionary" is.  You haven't expressed it clearly.  It is the "best name" for what?  The template relying upon  should be orphaned (It breaks whenever a page is renamed anyway.  I've fixed two articles just now where Wiktionary was used on a disambiguation page.  That's the sort of problem that the template causes.)  You might want to put it to some other use, not involving , afterwards.  But such putting to another use still involves replacing it on the articles where it is used in its current form. Uncle G 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I forgot to give Susvolans, who also pointed to Wiktionarypar, a name check in the above. &#9786; Uncle G 16:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you your plan, Uncle G. Go through the articles and replace  with. Extra parameters are ignored, so there won't be an immediate change. Once you're all done, we can copy the text from wiktionarypar to wiktionary, suddenly enabling that function and parameter on all those articles. We can then redirect wiktionarypar to wiktionary as our long-term solution. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

wiktionarypar2, etc.
Uncle G - Why is using multiple wiktionarypar boxes a worse solution than using the cluttered Wiktionarypar2 & Wiktionarypar3 boxes? -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That question is unanswerable, being based as it is upon the false premise that the boxes are cluttered. They are, of course, no more cluttered, since they take exactly the same form, than Wiktionarypar is cluttered.  Multiple boxes will result in objections of "box stacking".  Look at 7 July 2005 London bombings to see this same idea in action, in that case consolidating multiple Wikinews templates into a single box. Uncle G 16:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's instruction creep and over-linking to create additional templates. I can forgive it for the bombings article, but that is an extreme circumstance.  Once the news dies down, replacing all those with single "{wikinewscat|2005-07-07 London bombings}" would be better.  Bad example.  For simple definition links, I don't see a problem stacking two, maybe three boxes.  Once you go past that, you're probably over-doing the linking anyway. -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Asserting that this is instruction creep is bizarre. There are no new instructions here at all, merely new templates that take more parameters and provide a different, further, form of interwiki linking.  It think that it's ironic that you mention Wikinewscat, a template that, just as here, was recently created to fill the need for a further form of linking to a sibling project that the existing templates didn't cover. Uncle G 16:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikinewscat's existence fits with other sibling project category linking templates, and it make sence because it can elminate the need for multiple Wikinews template calls. -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Best of Both Worlds
I combined Wiktionary and Wiktionarypar, creating a new template that allows a person to specify a parameter or not.

See User:GraemeMcRae/wiktionary, which is fully explained at User talk:GraemeMcRae/wiktionary

I would like to replace the existing Template:wiktionary with my version, if no one objects.

&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy, and hoping nothing breaks. Josh Parris # 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I made the change just now. I will check for breakage!&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 07:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did some tests, and it appears all is well...
 * It is known that some editors use parameters of templates as "clever" comments. For example, they might write,
 * &#123;{Wiktionary|this template will make a handy link}}
 * Such usage will cause breakage when the &#123;&#123;{1}}} parameter is added. I hope no such thing happens, but you never know.
 * One thing that has been the subject of discussion here is the load on the Wiktionary server caused by the Search parameter, which was added to cope with the fact that Wikipedia views all pagenames as starting with a capital letter. I have good news: if you supply a parameter, then the link created by the template does not invoke Search, so this template truly is the best of both worlds.  (Fingers crossed)&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 07:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionaryleft
I made Template:Wiktionaryleft for if you wanna put the tag on the LHS. --Dangherous 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Text: looking up a word on Wiktionary or in Wiktionary?
I'm not a native speaker, but somehow the phrase "look up the word on Wiktionary, the free dictionary" seems strange to me; we say "look up the word in the dictionary" but "look up the word on Google". I think "Wiktionary" is closer to "dictionary" than to "Google" and so I would prefer "in Wiktionary". Do others agree or disagree? AxelBoldt 17:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, AxelBoldt.&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 04:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * However, it is a website, and when I usually hear people say, "let's look this up on the OED's website, or on Wikipedia.--  Talk [ (add)] • Contribs 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Would "Look at this word's entry in Wiktionary" be less controversial? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't say you are "in" the internet, you would say you are "on" the internet, although that could be an arguement, too. --71.225.89.57 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * i would point out that when using a dictionary the definitions are literally found inside the book, whereas a connection to a website is... well it's certainly a different method of getting a definition.203.206.42.213 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Category?
I see that has been added to, and then again removed from, the tempalte, all without any discussion here that I can see. My first thought is thqat such a category is a good idea, but I don't feel strongly. Why was this category added, and why was it removed again? what are the argumetns, pro and con? DES (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the category because it seemed like a good idea to help see the connection between Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary. Apparently User:Duncharris didn't think so.--   Talk [ (add)] • Contribs 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been listed at categories for deletion. Categories for deletion--  Talk [ (add)] • Contribs • 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Placement
Is this template supposed to be placed at the bottom of the page, along with the external links, or at the top of the pages, like an infobox?--  Talk [ (add)] • Contribs 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This template is deprecated. But Wiktionary templates in general should be placed next to the appropriate section of the article, if there is one.  On disambiguation articles, they are placed at the top.  Note that these are interwiki link templates, and that an interwiki link is not an external link. Uncle G 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikt
I made this, which is just a copy of Template:Wiktionary, but shorter (to save people time). --Dangherous 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This template happens to have been TfD'ed back in July last year. I'm nominating it for CSD under G4. Saving 5 letters doesn't a new template justify, imo. Kimchi.sg | talk 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've recreated template:wikt, but as a redirect this time, similar to Template:wt. Redirects are cheap, and I keep forgetting the two-letter variant. -- nae'blis 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Deprecated or no?
I've skimmed over some of the debates that surrounded Wiktionary vs. Wiktionarypar and it remains a bit unclear to me whether this has been resolved or not. With the parameterization of the Wiktionary template, it seems Wiktionarypar has been rendered superfluous. Is that a reasonable conclusion to reach? User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the conclusion I reached too. "wiktionary" is certainly a nicer name for the template. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Wiktionarypar supports up to five words (in case you want to link them all at once), while Wiktionary supports only one, but additionally supports a different name for the link. -- Petercrabtree 04:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New logo & interwiki
Look up  in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Please add fr:Modèle:Wiktionnaire. I also suggest you to use the new logo.
 * ✅ Adding link seems to be done. --Kslotte (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki
editprotected Please, add hr:Predložak:Wječnik. Thanks! --Ivan Štambuk 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. CMummert · talk 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Please add tr:Şablon:Vikisözlük. John Vandenberg 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ in a moment. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why lc search
Why doe this template do a lower case search?(Gnevin 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary does not ucfirst page names by default. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ALT code
There is an alt code issue. Please see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11277 $ w3m -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free |fgrep [|head -n 1 [50px-W] Jidanni 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Documentation Edit Request
This template is protected for obvious reasons, but I see no reason the documentation for this template needs protection. Indeed, there isn't any documentation on the page itself (only a little on the talk page), presumably because of the protection. Please add this to the bottom of Template:Witionary: &lt;noinclude&gt;

&lt;/noinclude&gt; Petercrabtree 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * MZMcBride has added a doc page. --- RockMFR 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I put the wrong code in there. That's what I get for editing so late at night. MZMcBride got what I meant anyway. Cheers. Petercrabtree 04:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

search
Could somone show how to write this code so that it defaults directly to the article rather than to the search page for the article's name, but without destroying the ability to pipe to a different page or to pipe a different title in the box? I am not advocating that the Wiktionary template actually be changed to that; rather, I am trying to get a better understanding of how this code works. Thanks! --M @ r ē ino 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 * To make the template point directly to a Wiktionary page, it would be something like:
 * Look up  in
 * All I did was remove the Special:Search/ (note that I don't think this should be done on the actual template). Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Word order
I can't tell you how many times I have by reflex clicked on the Wiktionary link (leading to a Wikipedia article), instead of the actual word on Wiktionary I wanted to get linked to. How about changing the word order to something along the lines of "Take a look in Wiktionary for Hampton". Anything that doesn't make you have to go back from where you stopped reading is fine with me. bbx (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clickable image
Please make it so when the Wiktionary logo is clicked, instead of going to the image description page, it goes to the corresponding Wiktionary page. It can be done as follows (you can just copy paste this code): Look up  in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. which produces: Look up  in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

-- penubag  (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to need reinstated at the very beginning. At present the template is leaving showing as a result of other templates that include this one; e.g. see article Aisling (given name) which uses Template:Infobox Given Name Revised. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

onlyinclude
The initial was accidently removed, resulting in the inclusion of the end tag on all pages including this template. Please readd it. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Juliancolton has fixed that -- see above. I guess it takes time for the updated templates to take effect  on some pages; the spare tag still appears on template:Infobox Given Name 2 as well. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was fixed while I was writing :-), Good. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikisaurus?
I noticed at Penis, there's a use of this template to target wikt article wikt:Wikisaurus:penis, formatted as. Is there a more specific template for Wikisaurus namespace at wikt? Because as it's set up it reads "Look up Wikisaurus:penis in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to Template:Wiktionary pipe
About a week ago, Rich Farmbrough made this proposal regarding the Wiktionary templates. I happened to notice that there wasn't an announcement about it on this page, so... here it is. Cheers, theFace 12:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅: Rich took the code of Wiktionarypar and pasted it into Wiktionary. Wiktionarypar now redirects to Wiktionary. Cheers, theFace 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to particular definitions
Is there any chance that it might be possible to add a specific section anchor so that links to wiktionary can go to a particular definition in the same way as footnotes in Wikipedia articles, thus making such links more useful to the reader? The ame applies to ordinary wikt: interwiki links. The main problem is that such anchors do not yet exist in Wiktionary.

By the way, the documentation says it takes up to five parameters, but doesn't say what each parameter does. --Cedderstk 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Link position
Are there any guidelines where to put the link? On top on page or where exactly? Template documentation needs improvement. --Kslotte (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Using secure links
Could you update this with the sandbox to ensure that secure links are used when necessary. This formatting is also used within several other sister project templates. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Casing
In most cases the word being searched for by this template will be all lower-case in Wiktionary (which is case-sensitive for the first letter too). The search link reflects this but the link text does not, defaulting to the page name with upper case first letter. Can it be made to default to the page name with lower case first letter if the parameter is not given? -- Gurch (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --- RockMFR 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Still ucfirst?
This problem seems to have reared its head again. For example links to the capitalized "Estate". --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's going to take me to grenade but it takes me to Grenade instead. And when both lc and uc articles exist at Wiktionary (like in this case), it takes me to the wrong place without auto-redirecting. This is perhaps a regression since above.  –xeno talk  17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hroðulf and Xeno. I bet you guys are using the secure server, since as far as I can see the pagenames are only uppercased when on the secure server. That's a bug in the sec link auto template that we use so these links become secure links when on the secure server. I made the sec link auto template so it is kind of my fault.
 * This bug has been reported over at Template talk:Sec link so I am currently working on a fix for it. I was poked about it on my talkpage two days ago so I have just spent some hours on it so far, but I think I know how to fix it.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bug
What does 'per' mean? shows a bug in the template.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 03:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete/remove this template?
Some editors are claiming that Wiktionary defs should not be linked into Wikpedia. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(layout)/Archive_7. Student7 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Improve
This template is difficult to see and easily ignored. It shows up on the right side of the page, it offers no information, and its only purpose is to link the reader outside of Wikipedia. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be an ad.

While the template is harmless as a link to the sister site, the problem comes when people use this template as an alternative to information (i.e. a definition). I have to ask then, why can't this template directly offer the definition from wiktionary? It'll make it a lot more useful and make Wikipedia all the better a source of information. Warthomp (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're suggesting having the template show the definition in the box, I can think of a number of reasons why not to:
 * That would be very difficult to do technically. Cross-project transclusion is not possible yet, and specifically bringing English definitions would make it even harder.
 * It would be very large. Many words have quite a lot of definitions.
 * Wiktionary has much more than just definitions. Etymology, pronunciation, translations, etc. are all part of the Wiktionary content. Showing just the definition would be reducing content given to the user.
 * I agree that the template is difficult to see and easily ignored. The styling of the box should be improved, in my opinion. --Yair rand (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about as a popup like n:MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js (which I try to make installed by an admin, for more than one year here)? JackPotte (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was afraid there would be a technical limitations. However, to address the other issues (and to make it more technically feasible) a lot of the work could be done manually. If I were linking, say, the disambiguation page for 23 skidoo, I would add the template, then manually direct it to which definition I was looking for in the same way that Wikipedia internal links are manually directed towards which specific article and section is needed to give more information. It might look something like this:


 * {Wiktionary definition|en|23 skidoo#1}


 * This would direct the information directly to the English Wiktionary, the article, and exactly which definition is needed. The final box might look something like this:


 * From Wiktionary, the free dictionary:
 * 23 skidoo (chiefly US, archaic) To leave, particularly quickly and in an advantageous time.
 * See more


 * The 'See more' section might be a hover-over, as JackPotte suggested, or a link to the main article to offer the synonyms, etymology, etc. After all, we're not trying to get rid of Wiktionary and all it offers, we're just trying to integrate what it does best (definitions) with what Wikipedia does best (information). Just some thoughts. If it's really not possible to do technically, at least it might be something to work towards. Warthomp (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the link to Wiktionary
Please remove the disturbing link to the Wiktionary article. The rationale from this template applies here as well. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Add position parameter
Please add the position parameter to the template. Copy it from commons template. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 24 September, 2011 [03:40]
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

initial capitalization
I'm not sure what's going on. At Fairy cake, I added, but the template produces a link to Wiktionary with an initial cap "Fairy cakes", which wiktionary fortunately redirects to the lower case article. I don't recall this happening before. Has something recently changed? older ≠ wiser 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, it appears as though it may be ignoring the capitalization of the parameters altogether. See for example Congress (disambiguation), where produces links that both go to the same initial cap entry. Something is wrong. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Short answer: The problem is just a few days old. We are aware of the problem and people are working to fix it.
 * Long answer: Some days ago Wikimedia updated its servers and the MediaWiki software to a new version. Among other things they changed how the secure server works. Templates like wiktionary internally uses sec link auto to generate the proper interwiki links for users on the secure server. However the new system updates have broken so we now have to totally rework it. That's why the Wiktionary links currently get the wrong capitalisation. The problems are visible both for users on the secure server and users that use the normal servers.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. older ≠ wiser 20:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Same problem at Chevron. --Mortense (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, why is needed at all? What's the problem with just using a normal wiktionary: interwiki link? --Yair rand (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason we made sec link auto was that when people use the secure server (using an encrypted https connection) all external links and links to other Wikimedia projects still were regular insecure http links. So secure users became insecure the second they clicked a link to for instance Wiktionary. And being kicked between secure and insecure also messes with the login status. Since if you log in at the secure server, and then get kicked over to the regular servers you aren't logged in any more. And many editors use the secure server for other reasons than security, some users can't even read or edit Wikipedia when on the regular servers, see Secure server for more on that.
 * So we made sec link auto and placed it "everywhere" where interwiki links are used. Later we added a global javascript that also fixes the interwiki links to be secure, so most users automatically get all interwiki links as secure if they are on the secure server. But many of the users of the secure server have javascript disabled for security reasons or for other technical reasons. So sec link auto was still needed to help those users.
 * Now Wikimedia has changed how the secure server works, but I have not yet studied exactly what effects that has. (I am semi-retired from Wikipedia but is back editing for a while since I am home with a slight pneumonia.) A bunch of other people are now working to update all the javascript, templates and system messages and so on so it will work correctly with the new secure server system. So please have patience.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure if "sec link auto" is still the cause of it, but I just noticed this behaviour in Theta. Is this issue still on the radar? Not that its a big issue, but quite irritating when you run into it the first time. Cheers -- Make (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording: wrong position of particle
I believe that instead of:
 * "Look up [word] in Wiktionary..."
 * it ought to be:


 * "Look [word] up in Wiktionary..."

"Look up" is a phrasal verb which would usually have the particle separated: for example if I want to read about an actress on Wikipedia I "look her up", I don't "look up her": it is not that sort of publication. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's partially a function of the pronouns and of a particular (different) meaning of the phrasal verb. When you "look her up", you are finding and contacting a person, which is not the same as scanning through a reference work to obtain information.


 * Also note that, if you perform a Google fight between "look the word up" and "look up the word", you obtain an almost equal number of returns for the two phrasings. Thus, either option is as valid as the other in current language.  I personally prefer "look up the word" in this situation, in part because it is followed by the prepositional phrase "in Wiktionary".  Keeping the phrasal verb together as a unit before its object thus prevents an apparent double preposition, which I will not put up with.  ;) --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_16. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The template capitalizes links to non-Latin script words
After being compelled to resort to a nasty hack, I tried to browse miles of discussions in this page and template talk: Wiktionarypar, but did not find a clue about this bug. Was is fixed somewhere in the past and then reintroduced? Or this is a primordial bug, which was overlooked when Wiktionarypar was merged to here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume it developed when the template was updated to make use of the new Template:sec link auto, and I assume the problem lies there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't know if Template:Wiktionary-inline has the problem. LittleBen (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Placement
Manual of Style/Layout says sister links should go in the external links section, but the doc here says this one can go anywhere. --JFH (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Strip disambiguation
I suggest to automatically strip any disambiguation as default if no wiktionary pagename is given. It can for example be done with Title without disambig. Especially strip "(disambiguation)" since Wiktionary is used on lots of disambiguation pages and Wiktionary never says "(disambiguation)". If a page using Wiktionary without a Wiktionary pagename is moved from the generic title to a disambiguated title then the Wiktionary link breaks. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. bd2412  T 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Very confusing!
So, how do I like to "lost the plot"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Italicising non-Roman headwords
The template automatically italicises, so we get: Really speaking "italic" refers only to a different version of the Roman alphabet, rather than willy-nilly sloped text. It is a very useful and standard way of making words stand out as "called-by-name" rather than "called-by-value". But for non-Roman characters it is not necessary -- they stand out already -- and the effect it has is rather ugly. Ideally, all(?) non-Roman writing should be left as is. Or there could at least be a parameter to say "Do not italicise". I haven't noticed any particularly hideous examples, but they will surely crop up somewhere. Compare the (very similar) problem of underlining, for example in the "Normal" column of the table in this section: Chinese numerals. The character for "one" 一 looks remarkably like 二, the character for "two" in usual writing. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up fish in Wiktionary ... OK
 * Look up down in Wiktionary ... rather essential!
 * Look up 南天 in Wiktionary ... rather undesirable


 * Agreed. Additionally, "italicized" letters in Cyrillic often look quite different from their standard counterparts. The italicized lowercase "t" in Cyrillic looks like a cursive "m". We don't need to foist that issue onto the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Able To Be Differentiated From Wikipedia Link
The color of extra-WP links is light blue, and the color of intra-WP links is a very slighter darker blue. It is almost impossible to tell which is what on certain monitors. I propose there be a very small image added to this template to indicate that it is indeed an external (non-WP) links. 137.124.161.13 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Does use of the template force a new line?
Does use of the template force a new line? It seems to, at least at: Socratic_Methods Is this a bug, or a feature? Is there some way to turn this off? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Inline link template
I would like to use as an inline Wiktionary link template. At the moment, it redirects to this template. It makes more sense to simply use for a template that generates a box. A short template name is far more useful in an inline template. I will start an AutoWikiBrowser run though the thousand or so articles that use and replace it with. — Eru·tuon 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Then again, it would be easier to work with, since there are fewer transclusions... — Eru·tuon 05:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And there are editors who will continue to use expecting it to work the same as it always did. older ≠ wiser 11:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with older ≠ wiser and, in addition, replacing the shortcut template is not agreeable per WP:NOTBROKEN. Please self-revert where necessary.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, and do not think that it applies to template redirects. I do not know how to revert all my AutoWikiBrowser edits, and do not think it necessary, but I do not plan to continue replacing with {{temp|Wiktionary}, since I decided to use  instead. — Eru·tuon 21:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see, reversing your edits is insurmountable even though making the edits was something you were able to master? Well, okay, no big deal I guess.  Not the end of the world, as they say.  Happy New Year to you and yours!   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you use AWB. I just do not have the technical knowledge to find and reverse the edits. Sorry. — Eru·tuon 23:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm with you. Your AWB edits (just out of curiosity, I looked ) are easy to find in your contributions list, and as a rollbacker I could revert them one at a time; however, I wouldn't do that even if you hadn't stipulated "other fixes and cleanup" in your es.  It's just not that big a deal, I think.  So Happy Days and Starry Starry Nights!   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  00:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)