Template talk:no entry

Additional destination: Citation

Is there any technical consideration that would make impossible or undesirable adding the Citation space as a destination for an only-in entry? I was thinking that we might be able to discourage wasted effort by contributors, patrolers and others if someone looking up a term that may have been deleted for insufficient citations was directed to the citations that we had. If it is feasible it would be nice to be able to have an example to show at the BP if a BP discussion is needed. DCDuring TALK 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If a Citations page exists, this template will automatically add a link to it - see wheel war for example. We could add it as an explicit destination too. Conrad.Irwin 07:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. In the case of I have a dream there is a case for directing users to WikiQuote. There are also cases where we might want to direct a user to Wikispecies (two-part species names), though I prefer to link to the constituent genus and species epithet. I am not sure how much consensus you would need to make the effort worthwhile. The concept seems to have worked well for the Appendices, but not as well for WP links. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't currently, but we could create one (just copy and paste {{in wikipedia}} to {{in wikiquote}}). "No consensus was used in the making of this template", so feel free to make (or demand) changes according to your rational ideas. Conrad.Irwin 22:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Overcomplicated?

I'm not sure why we need subtemplates like {{in wikipedia}}. Couldn't we install a switch, like {{only in|wikipedia|foo}}, where it checks for namespace/cross-project links? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am of the same opinion, that we should just have a switch (or unified language, like "For this and other related terms, see"), rather than subtemplates. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I find I forget this subtemplate stuff between my rare uses of this. It would be better to make this easier to use if we are to deploy it more widely. Could it also (or something similar) be used to direct users to the Talk page if there is a RfV or RfD discussion. This might help discourage pointless repeated efforts to introduce the same term without furthering the discussion. DCDuring TALK 09:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So... anyone want to convert the template to work without subtemplates, and convert the existing usages of it? - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Language header indicating which language doesn't have an entry?

Certain entries use this template in an individual language section, while having other language sections with content on the page. Should these sections exist? If these should exist, shouldn't entries using this template as the only content on the page include a language header over the template? Also, shouldn't this template categorize somehow? --Yair rand (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a desirable template for items that don't meet CFI, whatever CFI says. I had not really thought about its use in language sections as its use usually arises only in multi-word entries and, possibly, proper nouns. Multi-word entries in two or more languages seem highly unlikely, except perhaps in some kind of direct borrowing, but it might be useful to allow for possibilities. These ideas might lead to more use of this as the lack of a language parameter makes it seem English-centric. All of your ideas seem desirable, if not urgent. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RFM discussion

discussions which preceded the RFM

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Liliana-60.

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.

---

Could you update your bot to treat Template:only-in like Template:only in (i.e. not tag either with nolanguage)? Alternatively/supplementarily, perhaps the two templates should be merged. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should - I have no idea why we have both. -- Liliana • 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I created {{only-in}} because {{only in}} counterintuitively requires the parameter to be a second template. I'd favour keeping the simplified {{only-in}} even if we do so by merging it to {{only in}}'s name. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Conrad was trying to discourage reference to other wiktionary namespaces, wikiprojects, or external links. Can we do so in a less counter-intuitive way and also without building yet another potentially widespread templates-calling-other-templates complex? I know text-parsing functions are considered too expensive. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

{{only in}} is madness. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

{{only-in}} mostly works with {{in appendix}} and {{in Wikipedia}}. It displays

Some information about this term is available at

• The English Wikipedia has information at English unattested phobias...

which could probably be addressed by altering {{in appendix}} and {{in Wikipedia}}, making replacement of {{only in}} with {{only-in}}'s content possible. Let's move to WT:RFM. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Liliana-60.

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.

---

Could you persuade KassadBot to accept Template:only-in (and not tag it as having "no language"), please? I'm mass-converting {{only in}} to {{only-in}} and simplifying the link syntax at the same time, because that's the easiest way of merging them (per RFM) that I can think of (rather than try to temporarily make {{only in}} handle {{only-in}}'s simplified structure), so even if we ultimately decide we like the name {{only in}} better, there will be a lot of {{only-in}}s for a while. I've blocked KassadBot for now lest it flag all the entries I'm changing, plus the ones Robin has updated manually. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could always decide that we wanted all the only-in/only_in entries to have language headers, like a select few of them which are on pages with other languages already do (e.g. abnodate). - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Much smaller issue; could the bot use {{head}} instead of {{infl}}? Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFM discussion proper

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

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.

---

Should be merged. {{only-in}} allows the first parameter to be a direct link, whereas {{only in}} requires it to be a second template, which is very counter-intuitive and is something I and other users often forget. (I don't feel like tracking down diffs to entries where one editor has written {{only in |w:List of plants}} only to have to correct it to... ah, I don't even remember how to use {{in wikipedia}} at the moment.) So, {{only-in}}'s tolerance of the parameter being a direct link should be retained by the combined template. It's probably possible to replace {{only in}} with {{only-in}}'s code and bot-replace all instances of {{in wikipedia}} and {{in appendix}} with straightforward links. See User talk:Liliana-60#Template:only-in. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Support, erm, per myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

With Mg's help (updating a lot of links), the merge has been put into effect. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

RFM discussion: January–May 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

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:only in to Template:no entry

Template:only in is confusingly similar to Template:only used in, but fulfills a very different role. Template:no entry is probably more descriptive (as long as nobody confuses it for "do not enter"). —CodeCat 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed seen people get confused and use {{only in}} where they obviously meant {{only used in}}. I'd like to eventually make {{only in}} a redirect to {{only used in}}, once its current content has been relocated.
Note this is used on so many pages that moving it will balloon the job queue. - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think redirects actually affect the job queue. There's nothing to be "done" when a page is moved, because all the links to the old name still work. —CodeCat 14:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But if we're concerned that people will be confused by the name, then we don't want the old name to exist even as a redirect to the new name: as long as only in still works, people can be expected to use it in some way (and as long as it still works as template meaning "we don't have an entry for this", people can be expected to use it the way they currently do). I think we should change everything that links to or transcludes/uses only in to use no entry, thus freeing up the name only in to eventually be made a redirect to only used in. I see no benefit to moving only in to no entry but not updating old uses of it; if all you want is to be able to use no entry going forward, you could just redirect no entry to only in. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved. I'll run a bot script soon to update all the entries using the old name. —CodeCat 13:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to update all the template calls? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm... —CodeCat 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. —CodeCat 14:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)