The link from this template to Wiktionry states "Definitions from Wiktionary".

That is an extremely narrow description of what Wiktionary provides. The entries at Wiktionary also provide an etymology, IPA pronunciation, pronunciation audio files, rhyming words, historical and variant spellings, inflection or conjugation, usage information, dated historical citations, etymologically related terms, synonyms, antonyms, anagrams, translations into other languages, and more. (See wikt:parrot for an example of what Wiktionary actually provides in an entry.)

So, saying "Definitions from Wiktionary" is rather demeaning of that project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey:Do you have a suggested alternative? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just say "Entry on Wiktionary". A Wiktionary entry is the equivalent of a Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that wiktionary isn't nearly as known as Wikipedia and some might not be aware that it's a dictionary. How about "about this word at Wiktionary"? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see "About this term at Wiktionary". I'd rather use term than word, because the entry is sometimes a phrase, abbreviation, or something other than a word. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I posted a link here at the Village Pump seeking more comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those like me who need this context: Anarchism#External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per EncycloPetey's comment, where WP has an "Article" tab, Wiktionary has an "Entry" tab. Not the last word by any means, but it's something. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most English speakers are familiar with the term "dictionary entry", more so than "entry in the dictionary". So "Wiktionary entry" might work best. It departs from the x from y meme, but then so does "Database entry x on Wikidata". Considering that Wiktionary rhymes with dictionary and only dictionary, "people might not be aware that it's a dictionary" seems a weak argument. Especially if you used "Wiktionary entry", I suspect most readers could figure it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Dictionary entry from Wiktionary", consistent with "Database entry x on Wikidata". Would probably result in a line wrap not present now, a minor point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents For what it's worth, I don't think that using "definitions" is reductive because dictionaries routinely include etymologies, pronunciation guides, see alsos, etc. Wiktionary is probably the most robust dictionary in the world and provides plus ultra content to a definition but still I can't imagine anyone not clicking on the link because he thinks it will lack declensions. The most important thing is to keep it very pithy to avoid wrapping lines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The other side: If you're here on Wikipedia reading a full article about anarchism or the prophet Habakkuk, would you then follow a link promising merely a "definition"? Saying that Wiktionary provides just definitions defeats the purpose of having the sister link by emphasizing the wrong bit of content over all others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but I disagree that the most important thing is to avoid a line wrap. We should be as useful as possible, avoiding a line wrap if possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about different screen widths, but trying a few of these above suggestions on the preview function when editing the template's sandbox reveals that there shouldn't be a line wrap, even for 'About this term at Wiktionary', my preferred choice. I agree, after reading an encyclopedic article, few will want to click to simply read a definition.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost five months--still no decision and no action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nine months now. Babies have been born who were conceived when this discussion started, yet still no action has been taken. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is waiting for a response after more than a year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @EncycloPetey:I point you to WP:VOLUNTEER. There is no organization or task force in charge of this page, and no one obligated to do anything. We never really had any agreement on how to word this anyway. I would suggest:

1. Create a new section on this talk page (whether than doing it at this section)
2. List 3 or 4 possible wordings, numbered option 1, option 2, etc, for people to choose from and ask them to state their opinion and preference
3. Post at WP:Village Pump and ask people to comment at this page.

The Village Pump post puts eyes and ears on the page, while the list of options gives people something concrete to comment on. If there is clear agreement after that discussion, use the {{edit protected}} template to request an administrator or template editor to make the change. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no part of this template that says "Travel guides from Wikivoyage"? Can that be added? SarrCat ∑;3 05:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarr Cat: It's already there, the |voy= parameter. See for example Paris#External links. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i guess it's not a default thing then. SarrCat ∑;3 09:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wikivoyage link, this template is checking Wikidata for d:Property:P107, which has been deleted over there - so it should probably be removed from this template's code - Evad37 [talk] 11:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only used once, in the test {{#ifeq:{{#property:P107}}|geographical feature|true|false}} - should that be replaced with an explicit true or an explicit false? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I went for "false", as that's essentially what it's doing now. If this needs to be changed, feel free to reopen the request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{wikimedia|collapsible=true}}, when I click on a sister site I don't want it to look for the whole article name, but only for a portion of it.

On James Bond (disambiguation) I only want it to search on James Bond.

What are the parameters/switches/values I need to use? Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Specify the first parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post an example template for wikimedia using James Bond (disambiguation)? Checkingfax (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{wikimedia|James Bond}} --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In this example what does the commonscat=no parameter do? {{wikimedia|James Bond|commonscat=no|collapsible=true}} Checkingfax (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The |commonscat=no parameter does nothing, and may be omitted. However, if it were |commonscat=yes it would modify the links in the Commons row, from c:Special:Search/James Bond to c:Special:Search/Category:James Bond. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter documentation needed instead for template {{wikimedia}}. I was redirected here. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this great template on cywiki, (Nodyn:Wicimedia / {{wikimedia}}) as you can see on the w:cy:Microcephaly article. I would like to see visible only those projects which actually do include a reference to Microcephaly; in this case, only WP and WD. This could then be added (in theory) to all 60,000 cy articles. As it stands it entices the reader to click on links which do not exist, which is not good. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]