Template talk:w

Need to clarify entry is at Wikipedia and not at Wiktionary
suggestion:


 * (at Wikipedia)

Thanks for considering this. Facts707 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Maybe another version of this one? It's useful for "see also" entries. Facts707 18:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See . &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Add #if around optional parameter lang


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
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:William_Shakespeare

instead of producing the standard link
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

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: wikipedia:: 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? 62.147.25.181 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 62.147.27.182 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this template actually useful?
Considering that the markup it templates for is so simple, is there any benefit to having this? Rome Roma Roma Is there any use for this?
 * Good point. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any module that depends on this template? If not, we could cancel this. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rome expands automatically to Rome, which I find annoying. I prefer to keep and use . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

Edit request
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, editors can convert Wikipedia links back to Wiktionary after the corresponding Wiktionary entries have been created. Also, can we add an additional parameter  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)


 * You could change the color of any elements with the CSS class of  in your personal CSS. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 00:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just realized the colors can be modified. KevinUp (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Required?
Why paremeter "1" is required?. Instead "page name" can be automatically used, without using any parameter.

For example in a page titled book, would link to book. 147.84.199.21 15:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)