Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Template talk:rfdef. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Template talk:rfdef, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Template talk:rfdef in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Template talk:rfdef you have here. The definition of the word
Template talk:rfdef will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Template talk:rfdef, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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)Reply
- 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 ] as well, so that people working in a given language will hopefully notice rfdef's in that language? —RuakhTALK 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
- 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
{{rfdef}} 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)Reply
- Added double categorization. Tweak as needed.—msh210℠ 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Tweaked – put in “definitions needed”, not “words for attention”.
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Note, category is now Category:Definitionless terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
The formatting is a bit weird, the <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> 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 {{{1}}} as well as {{{lang}}}. Any objections/further comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- (Incidentally, re
demo vs. noca: demo is used in some other templates, and is better than nocat in that it ({{{demo|]}}}) doesn't use #if, which nocat does. Likewise:) Using demo rather than #if:{{NAMESPACE}} to test for mainspace use saves on #if 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 1 as a synonym of lang, but existing uses should be checked first to make sure 1's not being used to store a comment. I agree re documentation.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I've had a go at Template:rfdef/new, it uses a switch, I got the idea from
{{rfd}}, 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)Reply
- I've now removed {{{1|}}} 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)Reply
- Objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Sounds good to me. —RuakhTALK 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Looks good; would look better if KassadBot (AF's replacement) were to add lang to rfdef where possible.—msh210℠ (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
subvectus needs translation but page is locked. Suggested translation: conveyed upwards; having been conveyed upwards. El3na-arvna (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
published this in the wrong place how do i delete El3na-arvna (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply