Template talk:defn

This (or at least this concept) might be useful for English phrasebook entries. --Connel MacKenzie 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorize template

Template itself should be categoized into Category:Request templates. Also, an interlanguage link should be added to no:mal:defn. __meco 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Allowing language codes

Can we use a {{lang}}/{{langname}} for this template to allow language codes to be passed in? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly reasonable idea, will do. Robert Ullmann 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate

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.

---

Template:defn

Redundant, used for the same purpose as {{rfdef}}, but this doesn't produce the "This word needs a definition" text. Delete or redirect. --Yair rand (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't redirect without checking each entry, as it was added assuming it wouldn't display. I don't particularly mind redirecting after checking entries, or deleting after either substituting it or converting each instance to rfdef, but see no good reason to do so.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete when practical to do so. The two templates don't seem to be identical. {{rfdef}} is the better of the two, more 'standard'. For some reason {{defn}} doesn't display anything, which leaves a gap under the inflection line and the next definition (when there is one). Nice spot, btw. Had never even considered nominating this for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think we have (or have had?) bots that added {{defn}} when the entry didn't have any # lines. Since there often is a definition in the entry, just ill-formatted, I think that that use makes more sense than trying to add # {{rfdef}} in the right place. But for manual editing, I agree that {{rfdef}} is superior. —Ruakh_TALK 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes KassadBot does that. And yes, usually it's for definitions that don't start with a #, so the bot doesn't recognise them. But... since they all end up in the same categories, that's no help to us. UllmannBot also added it to a lot of CJKV entries, virtually all of them. If we were to keep it, we'd be better of making it categorize in a different category - though that in itself seems really lame. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've set up {{defn}} to accept lang=<langcode>, so that a bot (mine probably) could convert all the uses of {{defn|Mandarin}} to {{defn|lang=cmn}}, at which point {{defn}} could be switched to {{rfdef}}, if {{defn}} fails RFDO, otherwise, not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, what would happen to Category:Han characters needing common meanings? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because KassadBot acts as described above, keep this without redirecting (i.e., keep it as a non-displaying template) for use in cleaning up entries. Even if it categorizes identically to rfdef, whatlinkshere can be used to identify tagged entries.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but... this would still be true for a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely no consensus. I will try and update {{rfdef/doc}} and {{defn/doc}} to reflect this debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Han characters

This tag should not be used on Han characters with Translingual definitions/sections. —Wiki Wikardo 09:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? If you find the tag in the same language and part-of-speech section as some definitions (like this), then yes, the tag should be removed. On the other hand, if an entry has a translingual section with definitions, and a Chinese section without definitions but with {{defn}}, that's normal. That is, in fact, the primary use of this template. When I checked a week ago, there were ~30,000 entries like that (with definitions in the translingual section and not yet in the other language sections), and only ~150 entries that used it in any other way. The aim is ultimately to move the definitions out of the translingual section and into all appropriate language sections (for more on this, see User talk:Atitarev#Removal_of_translingual_definitions). - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this template really necessary?

I don't believe that the {{defn}} template is actually useful to readers or editors. If you don't know the definition of a word, you should research it and then add it to Wiktionary, or if all else fails, discuss it in the tea room. Readers shouldn't have to look for a definition for a word and instead see This term needs a translation to English. Please help out and add a translation, then remove the text {{rfdef}}..

just a common-level editor Did I make a mistake or are you concerned about one of my edits? Then, talk to me.

First of all, some background: almost all of the entries on which this template appears were imported a decade ago by a robot. As far as I no, no-one is adding new {{defn}} entries to Wiktionary, or if they are, they're a trickle which is comparable to the trickles of {{rfdef}} entries that are added in other languages. Now, why are words sometimes added without definitions? Sometimes users can provide useful information besides definitions, such as pronunciation or romanization information; someone who wants to know how to romanize 層 is better served by a definitionless entry for it than by no entry at all. Meanwhile, someone who comes to the entry and sees the {{defn}}/{{rfdef}} template may add the definition, and indeed, people seem to have been doing just that, because there are fewer uses of this template today than there were when I checked a few months ago. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: July 2013–July 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

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.

---

Template:defn

I'm not sure why we have one template that shows a notice ({{rfdef}}) and one that doesn't. I think it's much more preferable to always show a notice. Compare rfdef with defn. —CodeCat 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

One good reason might be to keep the various request categories from being cluttered, as there is no particular other way to prioritize. It would be better if we had a system for collected "likes" for requests and sorted by the number of likes. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That might work if the typical use case was "person looks for some entries to fix". But the reality is more likely "person happens to visit entry, notices request to fix it". Because of that, I don't think adding a notice will have any negative effect whatsoever. And there is concrete evidence that adding notices in other cases has had a positive effect. For example, it has cause many more Dutch entries to have their genders/plurals fixed, compared to when those notices were not there. So they really do work. It's really just psychology: it is well known that humans are bad at noticing the absence of something, whereas the presence of something is more easily noticed, and something unexpected or unusual is noticed especially fast. —CodeCat 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered this myself. I agree that a notice should always be displayed. I support merging (redirecting) defn into rfdef. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The only noticeable effect will be to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's even possible to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kept due to no consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: October 2015–September 2016

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

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.

---

Template:defn

This is completely redundant to {{rfdef}}. Both templates have the same purpose and the same parameters. They only differ in what message is displayed. —CodeCat 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: According to [[template talk:defn]], we've kept this twice as "no consensus".​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep for the reasons covered in the earlier discussions.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, my initial reaction is to say: delete per nom. But merging it into {{rfdef}} would flood the category that rfdef places entries into (rfdef seems to be deployed only on entries people specifically want defined, whereas defn was apparently deployed semi-automatically on a huge set of Chinese characters). - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They already categorise the same way. —CodeCat 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think as they stand they're near-identical. During past rfd's they had different parameters and categorization so a redirect wouldn't work whereas it would now. I'd honestly just delete this. The Han characters already have Category:Han characters needing common meanings which rfdef supports, so fears of an inundation of Han characters are unfounded. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Chinese entries needing definition is already flooded anyway. See also Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2015/December#.7B.7Brfdef.7D.7D_and_Han_characters. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per the above discussion. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirected.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)