Template talk:Dicdef

Not a good redirect

This template lacks sufficient documentation and instructions that the user means to send an article from Wikipedia to the Wiktionary category, which is in effect what the template does because it redirects and places the tagged articles into the "Move To Wiktionary" category. What prompts my concern is that we're discussing having a Bot do automatic Transwiki transports of items that were flagged "Move to Wiktionary". I think there should be only one flag for that sort of thing, with no redirects. Having stated that what I am going to attempt to change this template to group its articles in another category, apart from those in the "Move to Wiktionary" category. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with any of the transwiki processes, but it is a bad idea to use a redirect to {{Copy to Wiktionary}} for this new template. It will likely confuse editors who are accustomed to using this redirect when this new template appears rather than the normal Copy to Wikitionary template. Redirects to a template are perfectly normal and are used by editors to save time instead of typing out the full template name. If this template is to be kept, it should be recreated with a new, descriptive name. You might want to consider bringing up this at the Copy to Wiktionary talk page, where it will be much more visible than on this talk page of a former redirect.

I have restored the redirect due to the issues I have previously stated and because the categories are improperly set up. For quick reference, your version of the template can be found here. --Blooper (Talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have one thing in common we both think it is a bad idea to redirect to the normal {{Copy to Wiktionary}} template. I have been discussing the Copy to Wiktionary process, over at Wiktionary at the Beer Parlor with the people who have to deal with the items copied to Wiktionary. I supposed I can give that conversation some more time to mature. There will be a vote soon on a Bot that will if approved copy items to Wiktionary that are tagged with {{Copy to Wiktionary}} or in that category (along with its variations {{Move to Wiktionary}} and {{Wiktionary}}), and that's when it will be very important to have this worked out. I am confused though... If you think it is a bad idea to redirect this template to {{Copy to Wiktionary}}, then why would you revert my edits, and make it redirect to {{Copy to Wiktionary}} again? I am sorry if I "confused" anyone by trying to improve the process. Finally, what do you mean incorrectly set up? Can we agree to set it up correctly and fix whatever error I made rather than reverting all the work. Goldenrowley (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. Sorry about that. I have fixed the categories problem. --Blooper (Talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the template to be less than half a page

I made it compressed because otherwise it is obscenely large (at least on my monitor) and makes any article it is used on all but unreadable. When used correctly the tag doesn't necessarily mean that the article is dead, it usually means that the article covers multiple distinct meanings of the word, and movement of one or more meanings elsewhere can save the article.- Wolfkeeper 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it still wasn't appropriate to use rollback here. The current styling is plug-ugly, which is what first caught my attention: I'll see if I can do something about that. And your stated use isn't accurate: that's what {{split}} is for. {{dictdef}} is the more severe template for unencyclopedic content, with {{copy to Wiktionary}} being a neutral alternative for single meanings. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not perfect, but significantly better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it no longer renders properly under Firefox. Reverted to ugly until you can make it actually work.- Wolfkeeper 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox, which naturally means I can't replicate this. A screenshot would be far more helpful than a vague description of wrongness. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It possibly depends on how many characters your screen width is set to; it looks like some sort of line wrap bug. Try increasing the font size maybe.- Wolfkeeper 05:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently says "Unless it can be turned into a full encyclopedia article in the near future," with no clause about what would happen. I'm mentioning it in this section since seems part of an in-progress redesign? DMacks (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does say 'please follow the following process' with a 'show' clicky doesn't it?- Wolfkeeper 05:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That's horribly confusing...the sentence continuation is separated off in a colored box with a border separator as well. How about "Unless it can be turned into a full encyclopedia article in the near future, consider moving it to Wiktionary." And then have the visible title of the hidden steps be "Wiktionary process" or promote the "Wiktionary Assessment Steps:" line from within the hidden to be the visible line. DMacks (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: try the current sandbox for size. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Nice.- Wolfkeeper 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Synced. Thanks, folks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Section" parameter

The parameter is redundant. Unlike a dicdef article, there is nothing wrong to have the etymology section in wikipedia articles. If I miss something, please explain the proper usage of this parameter in template documentation. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]