Redirect Template‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Speedy keep, 2017 October 17, see discussion. No consensus, 21 July 2005, see TfD. No consensus, 20 February 2005, see TfD.

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 144#RfC: Cross-wiki redirects to Wiktionary for consensus regarding use of this template

See also: Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect, where this template is also discussed.

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)

• Sounds good to me. Pcb21| Pete 11:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • For convenience, please keep template names as short as possible.--Patrick 01:00, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
    • You're right. Suggestion to rename withdrawn. • Benc • 03:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I think "wi" may be a little *too* short... hard to guess what it means... "wikt" maybe? Pcb21| Pete 03:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • OK. Note however that one rarely has to guess what a template name means, one can see how the template is rendered.--Patrick 09:23, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
      • I vote to make it "wiktionary" (replacing the present redirect). This template is the most appropriate one to use that name. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I think it should be something like "wikt" or "wiktionary2". "Wi" is just too ubiquitous, to me. Though I suppose it wouldn't have a need to direct to any other project than Wiktionary, I suppose. Phoenix-forgotten 01:55, 2005 Apr 25 (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)

• What is the threshold (Kb)? -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no threshold. Special:Shortpages is simply the list of the 1000 smallest pages in the main namespace. • Benc • 22:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. Looks like we just have to get the message up above about 100 bytes/characters. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Does the count include the text of the template, or only the four characters needed to put the template into the article? RickK 22:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just checked, and it looks like it only counts the characters used to insert the template. I really hope we don't have to use "subst".-- Netoholic @ 22:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I just thought of a hack to work around the problem: add a space-filling comment directed towards editors on every soft redirect page. Example at Red-handed. Of course, this is a minor waste of space, and it's a silly workaround at heart, so I'm a little ambivalent about recommending it as a solution. • Benc • 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I doubt that would work long term. Is there an way to modify how Special:Shortpages is generated, to eliminate any pages with only template content (anything wrapped in "(( ))")? -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a better long-term solution. It would be relatively easy to implement by modifying the MediaWiki code. You could put in a feature request at Sourceforge [1], but it might be best to discuss it first on m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion and/or the mailing list — major changes to Special pages have a way of generating unexpected side effects. • Benc • 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • This is now reported as Feature request 455. Angela. 14:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Apparently, this fix never went through. People are still adding long hidden comments to pages using the ((wi)) template. In order to standardize the approach, you can now substitute in ((longcomment)) to the page. That will add just enough characters that it passes the threshold and keep these pages from showing up as a false-positive. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• yes please. --evrik ^(talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)

No it doesn't at all and I don't understand why you think it does. If for whatever reason (changing policy on Wikipedia, external factors changing) that an article is more appropriate than a redirect to Wiktionary, simply overwrite the template with the article. Pcb21| Pete 20:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First because it doesn't appear as a red link, second, because newcomers may not know that they can just get rid of this message and write something there. Dori | Talk 20:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Eh, a blue link means that an article on that subject is not allowed? We expect newcomers to learn a million and one things, this one is no different, and in practice this template is only used in borderline cases, so the number of overwritings is likely to be small. Pcb21| Pete 20:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A blue link means that an article exists, anyone following the link will instead just see a page directing them only to the wiktionary, thus discouraging the creating of an article there. We all know that red links stimulate the creation of articles, and that dic defs are the easiest for newcomers to create, and that this notice will discourage them. It will also discourage the creation of valid articles under these names. And we should make it easier for newcomers to get started not harder. If it's hard now, it doesn't mean that it's OK to make it harder for them. We should make the whole process easier. Just now I was wondering how to go about listing a cat for deletion. I've been on Wikipedia since 2003, and I didn't feel like hunting around for some procedure. Dori | Talk 21:09, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think I need to some evidence of the harmful effect that you predict because at the moment I just don't see it happening. The articles that have had this template put upon them have generally gone through VfD and had a strong "move to wiktionary" vote. I think the value of the cross-wiki fertilization far outweighs the possible downside you have identified.

P.s. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Pcb21| Pete 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we ought to be encouraging newbies to create duplicates of dicdefs which already exist. If the community has decided that "foo" is not something we want to have an article on, we ought to record that community consensus in some way - and, moreover, one person doesn't get to overturn that community consensus by being bold. Noel (talk) 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does the current revision make everybody happy? —siroχo 23:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Not really, not an article not a redirect, yet in the main namespace. Dori | Talk 02:24, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I like it, in the spirit of compromise. Dori, what is the problem with having a new page type - a soft redirect if you will? Pcb21| Pete 06:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still feel the same way about this, but when I am the only one crying about something I usually drop the matter. Dori | Talk 12:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think this template is very useful and should be encouraged. RickK 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)

How? Pcb21| Pete 21:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A plain cross-project redirect to the Wiktionary is what's impossible to edit (without hand-crafting the appropriate URL). This template makes it far easier to do so. Noel (talk) 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find this a sneaky way to get around the rule the Wikipedia is not a dictionary (without claiming that was its intent). But if you don't like that rule, try to change it, and propose merging Wiktionary with Wikipedia, rather than working around it like this and then claiming the result is a compromise. It's a clear breaking of the rule. Pages consisting of nothing but weblinks are also supposedly discouraged here. And I don't see why Wikipedia should particularly link to Wiktionary or vice verse. This smells of preferring something because it is in-house rather than because it is best. You would also put links to other dictionaries on the page if you really wanted to give most value. We often give external links from articles to pages that have better and fuller discussions on the topic than Wikipedia does, and quite rightly. So do Encarta and Britannica. Are other external links to other dictionaries forbidden on these pages? Why? Who has decreed this and by what authority? Also articles are not supposed to consist of "Mere collections of external links" or "Mere collections of internal links". Is a collection of one not a collection? This appears to me to effectively break the policy of Wikipedia not being a dictionary and break the policy of Wikipedia and Wiktionary being separate and break the policy of articles not being mere web links. And by what rule are people prevented from now creating thousands of such pages is this is allowed? Jallan 01:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering what the text currently is for a nonexistant page (click that to see, it links to wiktionary), I don't think this is much different, it simply confirms that indeed there is a definition of the term at wiktionary. This template is basically different boiler plate text for a currently empty entry. —siroχo 04:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't look at these pages as primarily information (i.e. the Wikitionary link). If that's all they were, Jallan's points would be well taken. Rather, a main motivation for this template is to prevent the creation of (potentially duplicate) dicdef's. Noel (talk) 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (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 —siroχo 00:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Reverted back. See wikipedia:avoid self references. The example you note is in part of the message system of the software and thus is changed automatically based on the site name. This template is placed on article pages. Use of Wikipedia makes the resulting article pages less useful to downstream users (who would want to remove such self-references). --mav 17:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree with mav. -- Netoholic @ 17:26, 2004 Oct 29 (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)

This template exists to facilitate border encyclopedia/dictionary cases. Please give me a shout if you would like it explained in detail/again/slowly. Pcb21| Pete 00:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A main motivation for this template is explicitly to prevent the creation of duplicate dicdef's; we don't want someone to create those articles. Noel (talk) 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, explain in detail, cause I think that if "There is no encyclopedia article for "Wi"." as the template states the article should be left as a red link which doesn't happen when the template is added to it. Maybe it needs a little rewording? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

On sober reflection my previous seems a bit odd. Apologies.

The intent of the template is that it should be used when a title is border line encyclopedia/dictionary, and when the community consensus (cough) has determined that the title belongs on the dictionary side of the border. However people will go on creating links to this borderline article. If we don't have a template, someone will fill that red link with another dicdef, and the cycle begins again. Having a blue link, which as you suggest implicitly suggests we have an encyclopedia article (when in fact we have a pointer to a dictionary entry) is to my mind really no great loss at all compared to the gain of wasted effort battling over wikipedia/wiktionary. Pcb21| Pete 16:08, 9 Dec 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 ((wi)) 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

This template already takes an optional parameter; ((wi|purlin)) would have done what you wanted. —Cryptic (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

...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 MassDavid George DeLancey (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Can I propose new wording as follows

Wikipedia does not currently have an encyclopedia article for Wiktionary redirect. You may wish to refer to Wiktionary redirect 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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.

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)Reply[reply]

Works for me thanks (remembered to sign this time} Jeepday 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

It is technically correct. I changed it a bit so it is more clear, [2]. —Centrx→talk • 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you are right, it would make more sense to make it a new template like ((Wi2)). 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)Reply[reply]

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 · edit). In that case we moved the main template code to the new template (Template:copyviocore (talk · links · edit)) 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Having policy and templates disconnected from each other is never going to fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

But Having Policy and Templates Disconnected from each other is Never Going to Fly.- Wolfkeeper 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, again, this is your particular interpretation of policy per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_73#WP:DICTIONARY_needs_tweaking.3F. Per WP:NOT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject...". Policies are descriptive, not proscriptive. We have community-accepted articles (prithee, gay, spastic, fuck, Yankee) which "are about the history and usage of the term." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that you have to rely on the phrase 'interpretation' really isn't so good. It's always possible to deliberately or accidentally misinterpret any piece of text, particularly if you are selective; but the policies are written to be of a piece, and when you take the whole thing together, I believe it becomes very hard to square it with what you claim; the policies don't seem to say that, and don't seem to have ever said that.- Wolfkeeper 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case I don't necessarily disagree that some of these articles may be valid. But that's not important for cases where this template has been successfully applied. In the cases where the detail of Wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply the article won't be deleted anyway.- Wolfkeeper 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither version being fought over here works for me. "Start an article if there is a fair chance it would grow to a full, encyclopedic size in the near future" since it seems to imply "go ahead and add a dicdef if you think someone else will turn it into an encyclopedia article instead. The other version, "Start an article only if an article can be written that isn't about the history and usage of the term" is, as Neil says, out of sync with both policy and practice. We do have articles about the history and usage of terms, when they go beyond "a dicdef", and the reason we have them is because the community supports having them.--Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very surprisingly, the policy and practice both is actually massively nearer the non term end, and a lot of those articles that are technically about a term right now can be turned into full non-term encyclopedic style with only minor editing to the introduction to change the style and scope; the content is usually fine. There aren't actually that many articles that are really about the history and usage of terms; in percentage terms they're a tiny, tiny fraction. Enormous numbers of articles are about places or people or scientific concepts or animals or plants; and these are practically never about a term. If you click random you almost never get a term article; I don't think I ever have hit one by clicking random. And if you ever do, you would usually be able to rewrite them. The number of term articles are probably thousands, but the non term articles are definitely millions. Those are probably the kinds of numbers we're talking about. The policy does actually have much broader support than you would suppose by looking at AFDs. A lot of the difficult AFDs are popular articles like swear words, many other dic-style articles get deleted or redirected without a lot of fuss by people who have a sense for what the right thing to do is; they just can't necessarily put it into words.- Wolfkeeper 12:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true that only a tiny fraction of our articles are about words qua words, but still doesn't mean none, so we should not be expressing things in terms of blanket prohibitions. And yes, some of our existing articles about words are true dicdefs and should be transwikied (I've done that a few times), but there are still articles about words on Wikipedia that go beyond dicdefs. It takes more than a sentence to say which is which, so rather than go into that detail in this template, I'd stick with what I proposed below: "don't write a dictionary definition". Somebody who really knows how to write an encyclopedia article will have no problem replacing the template with an actual article, if one can be written.--Father Goose (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

That doesn't work because "information on the term" suggests it would be an article about the word itself. Here's what I propose: "Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary." That's it. No second sentence. We need neither a prohibition nor a suggestion to replace the template.--Father Goose (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With this template we're fighting what a lot of editors/readers (in many cases deeply) believe, but cannot support; partly/mainly that an encyclopedia article is just a long dictionary article. But it's really, really not. Once you realise that, the next problem is, OK, what is it then? We *want* them to read the policy, because we get higher quality articles. Pointing out that it's not the two most common things that people get wrong is highly desirable.- Wolfkeeper 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• unlike a dictionary the article is not primarily about the term
• it's not about sheer size.- Wolfkeeper 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Father Goose, articles on terms are fine provided they have encyclopedic content (thus the wikilink to encyclopedic in my proposed wording) but I think your proposal is better than what we have now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's encyclopedic content? I genuinely don't know what that means for an article about a term. At least I hope I don't. I mean take the term 'rocket', would that include content on things that grow fast as well as go fast??? Plants and ballistic missiles? Covered encyclopedically in one article?- Wolfkeeper 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want me to repeat the list of articles that I've given you numerous times so you can look at examples? Here's another one for you: American (word). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I want you to define what encyclopedic is, in this context. FWIW the wiktionary defines it as:

2. (lexicography) Relating to or containing encyclopedic information rather than only linguistic or lexical information; about facts and concepts, and not only words; including proper names, biographical and geographical information and illustrations.

I think they've nailed it; and I don't think you throwing a bunch of hand-picked 'examples' around really cuts it.- Wolfkeeper 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you skipped definition 1 Of or relating to the characteristics of an encyclopedia; concerning all subjects, having comprehensive information or knowledge. An encyclopedic article about a word treats that word as a concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course all words are concepts as well, but they don't seem to be encyclopedic concepts as definition 2 seems to set down very clearly. And I deliberately left out 1 because it didn't say anything important we can use here. Trying to define encyclopedic in terms of what encyclopedias do within an encyclopedia makes no sense for us here.- Wolfkeeper 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I think it's vague in a bad way, considering the common myths (which have always been disclaimed in the policy) that dictionary articles are simply a definition, or that dictionary articles are short. The policy is and always has been very clear that this is not what the policy says. If you write that, then you're basically inverting the meaning of the policy; just about any article in Wiktionary would normally be considered long enough to be kept; you're leaving out the critical bits of the policy.- Wolfkeeper 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The policy is very clear that articles are not primarily about the definition and usages of a term either, and that's not implied or suggested by your suggested sentence.- Wolfkeeper 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've unprotected the template but will make no edit for the time being. If I continue to hear no protest from you, I'll implement the change as suggested.--Father Goose (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with templates like this being unprotected.- Wolfkeeper 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's still semi-protected, as it was before the dispute. I see no evidence of it ever having been vandalized, and it's not used on articles, being a "soft redirect" type template. As yet I haven't seen a reason why it needs to be permanently full-protected.

So, since you have returned to the discussion, what is your opinion of the "compromise sentence", above?--Father Goose (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, wait, you did respond, nevermind, I'll digest your response.--Father Goose (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Well, I failed to link to WINAD the second time I proposed the change, above. Here's the exact text and formatting I'm suggesting:

Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

By linking to WINAD, that explains all the exact restrictions imposed upon us by terms of the policy. I feel that that is sufficient instruction.--Father Goose (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That will tend to destabilise articles that this tag is applied to. People rarely click and read the entire policy. The tag is used where it has been established that the article is about a term, and that it's unlikely that the article can be sensibly rewritten to be about something in the 'is a' sense, rather than 'is a term' sense. Dictionary articles are always about a term, but the distinction is not clear to most people that read the wikipedia and may decide to edit the article. Having the tag actually indicate that there is considered to be a difference is highly desirable.- Wolfkeeper 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When considered in this context, the new text does not seem sufficient.- Wolfkeeper 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"That will tend to destabilise articles that this tag is applied to." -- can you point to any evidence of this? It's been my experience that people will not just ignore policy, but they will ignore instruction put right in front of their faces (i.e., this very template). So adding more instruction will cure nothing.

Beyond that, I don't understand what your aims are here.--Father Goose (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template documentation says:

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.

So the template is specifically intended to be more informative than normal as to what should be expected. The template is intended to be educating as to the Wikipedias norms for articles are, and whatever anyone says about a few acknowledged exceptions, WP:NAD is very normally expected to be followed.- Wolfkeeper 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still under the impression that the proposed wording meets all of those needs.--Father Goose (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that most people have only a vague idea what the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia is, and it's a usability thing that we need to tell them in simple terms what the policy says in the context that this WI template is being used. Clarity is very important, and I fail to see any material way in which what is currently in the template is actually incorrect or negative for the Wikipedia.

I also take slight issue with: It's been my experience that people will not just ignore policy, but they will ignore instruction put right in front of their faces, as this seems to fail to assume good faith on the part of people that may decide to try to edit the article. We need to assume that they don't understand the issues, rather than that they are deliberately trying to cause problems for the project, and I don't see that we should assume that they will necessarily click on the policy before clicking on the edit button, that's assuming that they actually know that they don't understand the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)

I just added an AWB feature request to request that AWB doesn't add the Wikify, dead end, and stub templates. GoingBatty (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, this feature will be included in the next version of AWB. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is awesome. :-D Thanks for that. I'll have to go update my SVN. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:21, 30 Adar I 5771 / 6 March 2011 (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)Reply[reply]

Done by User:OlEnglish. --Yair rand (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the pages that this template is transcluded in, and incorporate this into MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Ups and Downs (↕) 01:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UpsandDowns1234: This is already done in the article namespace using ((No article text)), 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 ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 ((ambox)) 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Wiktionary is case-sensitive with regards to the first letter, whereas Wikipedia always capitalizes the first letter. Most of the time, the all lower-case version is correct for a wiktionary redirect. Where it is not, you can pass a parameter with the correct capitalization. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]