Template talk:Wiktionarypar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Wiktionarypar is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
This template does not have a documentation subpage. If the template page contains categories, interwiki links or usage notes, move these to Template:Wiktionarypar/doc. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permprot}}).
See also, Template talk:Wiktionary, Template talk:Wiktionarypar, Template talk:Wiktionarypar2(merged) and Template talk:Wiktionarypar3(merged)

Contents

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 19 for details. -Splashtalk 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap

I'm not sure if it's a freak occurence, but in the article Autism, I noticed that the text overlaps the template. Any way to fix this. Chuck 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording revert

On May 2, User:Rlog changed the template's wording to "Wiktionary has has related dictionary definitions, such as: foo". I reverted that wording, since it's not only too wordy, but also misleading, since usually the Wiktionary link is being used not just for a related definition, but the definition of the article's title! (Remember, {{wiktionary}} doesn't understand how to strip parenthesized disambiguators; see for example Animal (disambiguation).) The "Look up foo in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" wording can still be used to refer to related definitions, but the reverse is not true. --Quuxplusone 17:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

An editor has proposed that the template should use a bigger font for the linked text (diff). Since this is a non-trivial formatting change to a widely-used template, I'd like to establish that there's consensus that the new formatting is an improvement before we implement it. --Muchness 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if we need to have a potlatch, I suggest we appoint a design team, comprised of representatives of the disciplines of Ergonomics, Orthography, Philology, Caligraphy, Pseudoskepticism, ... uh, maybe that's overkill.
Dewd, that Wiktionary box is lame. The whole point of that box is to give a place to click to look up the word. But for a short word that hot spot is less than 5% of the box. I was making the word a little bigger (like 7% of the box). Does anybody think there's something wrong with making the word a little bigger and easier to click on?
Still this is only a little less lame. Everything I know about HTML I learned in a prior millenium, so I don't know how to build a box, but I'll tell you what would look good.
The existing box has a Wiktionary logo that's shrunk down to crappy illegibility. Additionally, it says "in Wiktionary the free dictionary" on the right. Combine the text into a single, readable, appropriately sized graphic saying "Wiktionary, the free dictionary", which should be linked to something. On the right should be "Look up foo, bar, etc", with the words in HUGE type. Something like this:
Wiktionary,

the free dictionary

 Look up

foo

bar
-- Randall Bart 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So does anyone have an opinion on the underlying question of making the linked word, the business part of this box, bigger?-- Randall Bart 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking appropraiteness

When is it appropriate to link to a Wiktionary entry in a Wikipedia article sentence, as in: "X is a characteristic of Y"? Obviously, there are only a few examples of words which don't also have a Wikipedia article (even short ones like the), but in the cases where the article's meaning doesn't make sense in context of the link-ee, or is a disambiguation page (and hence non-explanitory), is this all right? Is there an (un)official policy on this question? —Lenoxus 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki request

Please, add sl:predloga:wikislovar. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording change?

{{editprotected}} Any possibility of changing "the free dictionary" to "a free dictionary"? Surely we can't be taking the position that wiktionary is the ONLY free dictionary? UnitedStatesian 03:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as Wikipedia's slogan is "the Free Encyclopedia", Wiktionary's is "the free dictionary". If you'd like that changed, you'll have to take it up with them. Unfortunately, it's not just something somebody added to this template. - auburnpilot talk 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Parameters Possible?

Is it possible to give infinite paramters?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this template takes one to five parameters. --Muchness (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're asking whether the code for this template can be altered to allow for infinite parameters, in theory it's possible, but I can't see a practical circumstance when infinite parameters would be necessary. Can you give an example of an article that needs more than 5 parameters? --Muchness (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, but ain't it best to keep all possibilities open?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see the point in implementing a feature that has no practical use. An alternate template for more than five definitions might take the form: Look up {{{defs}}} in Wiktionary, the free dictionary, where the parameter defs is an arbitrary string of text. But again, I don't see the value in creating an alternate template until some practical need for it is demonstrated. --Muchness (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the code for infinte parameters?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That was just a hypothetical example off the top of my head, but the code for infinite definitions is a parameter that takes an arbitrary string of text, so the editor using the template types the desired definitions manually (i.e. {{wiktionary-infinite|defs=''[[wiktionary:definition1|definition1]]'', ''[[wiktionary:definition2|definition2]]'', etc.}} It's considerably less user friendly than this template. --Muchness (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An arbitrary string of text? What is an arbitrary string of text?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And "...definitions...". What do you mean by "...definitions..."?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)