Template talk:R:OneLook

Final dot
The final dot looks bad in the middle of a sentence and serves no function. I know that some other ref templates also use a final dot, but they should not. Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also automatically adds dots to references (not supposed to be used in the middle of sentences). Create a discussion if you think we should remove dots from references, as that is de facto our practice. J3133 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did not use to be, from what I remember, and still is not in many reference templates. Oh well, another "improvement". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at πεύκη and none of the Ancient Greek templates have a final dot. I looked at taeda and none of the Latin templates have a final dot. People should stop adding the final dot until they show consensus for that; I oppose that and common practice is far from unified. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If this disagreement continues, let's create a Beer parlour poll or something. I am adamant that the dot goes: evidence shows this was not our practice some years ago and here even shortly recently, there is no trace to discussion for adding the final dot and many ref templates are still not using the final dot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–May 2023
Referencing "OneLook" doesn't make sense, because OneLook isn't a reference. It's like if we started referencing Google search. Also, OneLook searches dictionaries that we normally wouldn't accept as reliable sources, such as Urban Dictionary. We already have templates for reputable resources like and, so this template isn't needed. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is vastly superior to a link to a single reference work in that it provides both users and contributors with an easy way to compare and contrast our definitions with those in professionally edited reference works (and Urban Dictionary). It signals our openness to such comparisons and to simply being more helpful to our users than most dead-end references. It offers tools that facilitate the creation of derived terms that are likely to prove attestable, being already included in other references. Having it in our English L2 sections helps undermine the fantasy that our entries are either vastly superior to vastly inferior to those in other works. I find it enormously helpful in checking the completeness and wording of our entries. DCDuring (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed to renaming to just  and moving it to the "External links" section? Ioaxxere (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither formatting options currently exist. I wouldn’t care either about the essentialist pedantry of what is a reference or reputable source or but external link. Fay Freak (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t have an “External links” section; it’s called “Further reading” and it can contain reference templates beginning with “R” that are not directly referred to in the entry (which should appear under “References”). That being the case, if it is decided that the template should be kept, it doesn’t need renaming. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we also have R:wp for Wikipedia and R:wikidata for example, so I don't see that as an issue. FWIW I have come across Google searches linked as references or further reading a fair number of times, often when the entry creator didn't have time to add properly formatted citations themselves. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per DCDuring. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per DCDuring. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 07:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Kept Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)