Template talk:rfdef

Other languages
I've seen this template used on entries in non-English languages. Should this template take a language parameter and then subcategorize the word according to language? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, right now there are only eight entries in Category:Definitionless words. If that's typical (I have to admit, I don't know if it is), then I think it would be overkill to create a separate definitionless-word category for every language. But maybe these words should go into Category: Language words needing attention as well, so that people working in a given language will hopefully notice rfdef's in that language? —Ruakh TALK 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Double categorization could be a good idea. However, the reason the main category is so small is that people usually pounce on entries shortly after  is added, so it may not be too critical.  Only two items in this category were here before the start of December. --EncycloPetey 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added double categorization. Tweak as needed.—msh210 ℠  17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tweaked – put in “definitions needed”, not “words for attention”.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, category is now Category:Definitionless terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Standardize a bit more?
The formatting is a bit weird, the should come last, and the whole template should only categorize in the main namespace. That would render demo= obsolete (I prefer nocat anyway). Also, it should accept as well as. Any objections/further comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, re  vs.  :   is used in some other templates, and is better than   in that it  doesn't use , which   does. Likewise:) Using   rather than   to test for mainspace use saves on   use (and allows for greater customization of use, e.g. allowing someone to not categorize an entry in ns:0 or to categorize an entry in an appendix). I don't think it should be switched over. I agree it should allow   as a synonym of  , but existing uses should be checked first to make sure  's not being used to store a comment. I agree re documentation. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at Template:rfdef/new, it uses a switch, I got the idea from, so only NS:0 and appendices will categorize. The reason for appendices is that we have appendices with definitions, such as languages that don't mean CFI (such as Klingon and Lingua Franca Nova). becomes obsolete as if it's used on any Wiktionary: or Talk: pages, it already won't categorize with the namespace check. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now removed and set it to categorize in Category:Definitionless terms (language unknown) when no language is given, which would be a clean up category (that is, a language should be added). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. —Ruakh TALK 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good; would look better if KassadBot (AF's replacement) were to add lang to rfdef where possible. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs translation
subvectus needs translation but page is locked. Suggested translation: conveyed upwards; having been conveyed upwards. El3na-arvna (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

published this in the wrong place how do i delete El3na-arvna (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)