Template talk:dontlinkhere

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Unnecessary. Ncik 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I don't understand it (there are two other spellings that redirect to it) - Παρατηρητής 13:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as another helper entry for finding formatting mistakes (especially newbies wikifying strange parts of a Webster's 1913 entry.) Ban Ncik for vandalizing the entries that referred to this template, making it infinitely less useful. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - (also review the pages that use it) - The periods in the 1913 Webster are part of its own punctuation conventions rather than a part of the abbreviations. We don't need dummy entries whose sole purpose is to find presumed formatting errors. Eclecticology 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Golly, that wasn't what the community consensus was at the time these were implemented. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
And where is this "community consensus"? Eclecticology 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Very old discussions are hard to dig up.
One good reason for crystallising them in Policies. Without doing that you are very much at the mercy of EC.--Richardb 12:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
One I found is at User talk:Connel MacKenzie/archive#Webster's abbreviations. But your assumption of bad faith is very chilling. Ncik has demonstrated he is acting in bad faith and is stalking. I'll continue looking for more concrete references to appease your paranoia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
--Connel MacKenzie T C 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The discussions in user talk pages can hardly be considered a part of consensus since they are only exchanges that you have had with individual users. In the BP reference the best I can do is quote you: "I agree that my experiment with the abbreviation of words in Webster 1913 was a little much. I do plan on undoing those changes. But I hesitate on removing the language abbreviations from etymologies; the automatic category addition is quite valuable." I have had concerns about the language templates used in the etymologies, but have not pursued that point because I have not yet thought of anything better to replace them. Your final reference is, as you say, "background", and as such does not represent any sort of consensus. Eclecticology 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That is false. They were "private" discussion only because back then no one else cared. The out of context quoting refers to abbreviations such as fr. for from and cf. for confer which I did delete at your request primarily. What you quoted me as discussing is not directly about these types of Webster's abbreviations at all! That was the compromise I made on your behalf - to remove the mundane abbreviations. It has since become evident that I was wrong to do so; confusion still exists for many who refer to ARTFL about F. vs. fr..
As for the "background" comment, what sane person would consider deleting a useful item? Of course the conversation (instigated by Ncik's stalking) was over. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with those discussions is that they are based on the wrong assumption that abbreviating a phrase by taking its initial letters and placing a period at its end is Webster specific. It is not, not in the context of abbreviating language names, and not in general. See my comments and references on Talk:OHG, in particular the citation from Fowler's book. The template is extremely confusing for users of Wiktionary that are not editors and principally doesn't belong there. It is the kind of stuff that we need to mention on WT:ELE or Wiktionary:Style guide, not in the main namespace. Ncik 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It is to assist new users who wikify A.. What sort of convoluted reasoning are you trying to pull suggesting that removing a useful identifier helps new users? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ncik has now done something to OHG. but still refuses to undo the damage he has done by removing this useful template. Making a request for an explanation, he circuitously referred back here, where he still cannot explain what relevance his other citations might have...we do not use those copyrighted sources for importing entries into Wiktionary. Nor has he deigned to comment on the lack of punctuation as a convention here for abbreviations, nor why this example should be an exception to that rule (other than for import tracking/corrections.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For those who would still assert that this is "unecessary," I must note that I found and corrected five more entries today, using this method. These entries can creep back in with each Webster definition import. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


This should probably emphasize that the linking considered "wrong" is within the ===Etymology=== section of entries that link to these targets. It could possibly be reworded to be more generic, describing Webster's 1913 as the likely source of these errors being flagged. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: As of January 31, 2006, the MediaWiki software that drives the Special:Whatlinkshere functionality is still not reporting entries that include this template. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[edit]

50+ linked to cf. / Cf.. --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Grease pit discussion[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from the page Wiktionary:Grease pit.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


I'm not sure what to do with this. For some reason we have it under ====Usage notes====, which of course it definitely isn't. How can this be used productively? If anything I'd use an invisible comment using <!-- -->. It's also only used in six entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty old template, back from the days when a lot of our content was little more than Webster's. Not using esoteric abbreviations in entries is now a standard part of our policy, and so the utility of this template is probably minimal. I expect it can be safely orphaned and deleted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Nominated. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate (2)[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


Per WT:GP#Template:dontlikehere, these aren't usage notes. I don't think a template is the best way to deal with this. If it is, it shouldn't display anything, it should just help with cleanup. My personal favorite would be <!--please don't link to this entry, please remove any internal links from the main name space-->. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned and replaced with {{Please do not link directly to the individual Webster 1913 abbreviations. If you encounter an article that does link to one, please edit it and replace the linked abbreviation with the corresponding text.}}, whose content is blank. Delete.​—msh210 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pure genius. Thanks, deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)