Template talk:w

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

Need to clarify entry is at Wikipedia and not at Wiktionary[edit]


Thanks for considering this. Facts707 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that this template is used in, e.g., definition lines. In fact, a way to add a sense of an initialism whose spelled-out version has a Wikipedia article but does not deserve an entry here is by means of this template.​—msh210 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe another version of this one? It's useful for "see also" entries. Facts707 18:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See {{pedia}}.​—msh210 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add #if around optional parameter lang[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Hello. I suggest to tweak the code so that the optional lang= is inserted into the URL only when the parameter is actually used. The current code is making the vast majority of links (English Wikipedia) go through the nonstandard link


instead of producing the standard link


The current link works but only after some HTTP redirection takes place, whereas the standard link is direct. Also, the current link won't let the browser display a purple-colored link if one has already visited the linked article (since the URL is different), whereas the standard link will. And as it seems to me, the fix would be easy enough -- the current code is:


Which would become:


There is no need for an "en" default value because all links are routed through en.wikipedia.org anyway. Does that make sense? 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll effect it (you can remind me at my talkpage if I don't) if there are no objections here soon.​—msh210 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template actually useful?[edit]

Considering that the markup it templates for is so simple, is there any benefit to having this?

{{w|Rome}}  {{w|Rome|Roma}} {{w|it:Roma|Roma}}
[[w:Rome|]] [[w:Rome|Roma]] [[w:it:Roma|Roma]]

Is there any use for this? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Good point. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any module that depends on this template? If not, we could cancel this. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, [[w:Rome|]] expands automatically to [[w:Rome|Rome]], which I find annoying. I prefer to keep and use {{w}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I just thought the same: it seems useless. At least if it had the functionality of the Wikipedia slink template, and allowed linking to sections, it would have some utility. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Would it be possible to modify the default HTML color tag of this template to another color, eg. #156456 so that Wikipedia links and Wiktionary links can be visually differentiated? In some cases, Wikipedia links are made because Wiktionary entries are not yet available. By using a slightly different color for {{w}}, editors can convert Wikipedia links back to Wiktionary after the corresponding Wiktionary entries have been created. Also, can we add an additional parameter |link=bad that converts the HTML color tag of Wikipedia links to red so that editors can specify that a Wikipedia link is not yet available? This usually happens for English terms borrowed from foreign languages or taxonomic names. See also Template talk:vern for a similar suggestion. KevinUp (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could change the color of any elements with the CSS class of extiw in your personal CSS. —Suzukaze-c 00:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just realized the colors can be modified. KevinUp (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]