WI

WI can stand for: * Wisconsin, a United States state * The '''British Women's Institute''', a group for British women

Wi

In Lakota mythology, Wi is one of the most supreme gods. He is a solar deity, and is associated with the American Bison. He is the father of Whope. Anog Ite attempted to seduce Wi, but she had one of her two faces changed into an ugly visage as punishment. Lakota godsSolar gods

Wi

* My alias is "Wi" (ja: ゐ). * "Wi"(ゐ) is a part of the word "Wikipedia". * I am a Japanese, and I come from Wikipedia Japanese version. * Since my English is not so skilled, if there is expression which is not appropriate, someone may correct me.

Wi

{| align=center border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #AAA; margin:0 2.5%; padding:0 10px" |- | There is no encyclopedia article for "".
For a dictionary definition of the term, please Wiktionary:.
To begin an article here, feel free to [{{localurl::|action=edit}} edit this page], but please do not create a dictionary definition. | |}

Wi

''See also:'' Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect, where this template is also discussed. ==Reason for recreation== I saw that this was deleted in July 2004 by User:Timwi because "I've added this to MediaWiki:Noarticletext". Clearly that solution is sub-optimal, because the noarticletext says "perhaps" there is an article at Wiktionary. This template is to be used when there is *definitely* an article at Wiktionary. I hope this explains my reasons for undeletion and restoration of the places that used it. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 18:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Renaming== This is the first I've ever heard of this template, and I really like it (see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect). ~~If the deletion policy is updated to use this template instead of nuking dicdefs: should be moved to ; should be moved to~~ User:BencUser_talk:Benc 10:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) *Sounds good to me. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 11:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) **For convenience, please keep template names as short as possible.--User:Patrick 01:00, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC) ***You're right. Suggestion to rename withdrawn. User:BencUser_talk:Benc 03:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) ****I think "wi" may be a little *too* short... hard to guess what it means... "wikt" maybe? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 03:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) *****OK. Note however that one rarely has to guess what a template name means, one can see how the template is rendered.--User:Patrick 09:23, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC) ****I vote to make it "wiktionary" (replacing the present redirect). This template is the most appropriate one to use that name. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) * I think it should be something like "wikt" or "wiktionary2". "Wi" is just too ubiquitous, to me. Though I suppose it wouldn't have a need to direct to any other project than Wiktionary, I suppose. User:Phoenix-forgotten 01:55, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC) ==Special:Shortpages== This template makes Special:Shortpages less useful since all articles using this template show up on that list. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 01:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) *What is the threshold (Kb)? -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) **There is no threshold. Special:Shortpages is simply the list of the 1000 smallest pages in the main namespace. User:BencUser_talk:Benc 22:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) *** ~~Gotcha. Looks like we just have to get the message up above about 100 bytes/characters. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 22:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~ *Does the count include the text of the template, or only the four characters needed to put the template into the article? User:RickKUser talk:RickK 22:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) ** Just checked, and it looks like it only counts the characters used to insert the template. I really hope we don't have to use "subst".-- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 22:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ** I just thought of a hack to work around the problem: add a space-filling comment directed towards editors on every soft redirect page. Example at Red-handed. Of course, this is a minor waste of space, and it's a silly workaround at heart, so I'm a little ambivalent about recommending it as a solution. User:BencUser_talk:Benc 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ***I doubt that would work long term. Is there an way to modify how Special:Shortpages is generated, to eliminate any pages with only template content (anything wrapped in "")? -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 23:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ****That sounds like a better long-term solution. It would be relatively easy to implement by modifying the MediaWiki code. You could put in a feature request at Sourceforge [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=34373&atid=411195], but it might be best to discuss it first on m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion and/or the mailing list — major changes to Special pages have a way of generating unexpected side effects. User:BencUser_talk:Benc 01:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) *****This is now reported as MediaZilla:455. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 14:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) == This is horrible == We shouldn't just have this notice on pages. Since when do we decide that there should never be an article with a certain name??? Because that's what that notice basically does. I don't like dicdefs on wikipedia at all, but this is going to the extreme. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 20:10, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :No it doesn't at all and I don't understand why you think it does. If for whatever reason (changing policy on Wikipedia, external factors changing) that an article is more appropriate than a redirect to Wiktionary, simply overwrite the template with the article. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::First because it doesn't appear as a red link, second, because newcomers may not know that they can just get rid of this message and write something there. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 20:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :::Eh, a blue link means that an article on that subject is not allowed? We expect newcomers to learn a million and one things, this one is no different, and in practice this template is only used in borderline cases, so the number of overwritings is likely to be small. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 20:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::A blue link means that an article exists, anyone following the link will instead just see a page directing them only to the wiktionary, thus discouraging the creating of an article there. We all know that red links stimulate the creation of articles, and that dic defs are the easiest for newcomers to create, and that this notice will discourage them. It will also discourage the creation of valid articles under these names. And we should make it easier for newcomers to get started not harder. If it's hard now, it doesn't mean that it's OK to make it harder for them. We should make the whole process easier. Just now I was wondering how to go about listing a cat for deletion. I've been on Wikipedia since 2003, and I didn't feel like hunting around for some procedure. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 21:09, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :::::I think I need to some evidence of the harmful effect that you predict because at the moment I just don't see it happening. The articles that have had this template put upon them have generally gone through VfD and had a strong "move to wiktionary" vote. I think the value of the cross-wiki fertilization far outweighs the possible downside you have identified. :::::P.s. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::: Sorry, I don't think we ought to be encouraging newbies to create duplicates of dicdefs which already exist. If the community has decided that "foo" is not something we want to have an article on, we ought to record that community consensus in some way - and, moreover, one person doesn't get to overturn that community consensus by being bold. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Does the current revision make everybody happy? User:Siroxo—User:SiroxoUser talk:SiroxoSpecial:Contributions/Siroxo 23:21, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) :Not really, not an article not a redirect, yet in the main namespace. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 02:24, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) :I like it, in the spirit of compromise. Dori, what is the problem with having a new page type - a soft redirect if you will? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 06:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I still feel the same way about this, but when I am the only one crying about something I usually drop the matter. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 12:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) I think this template is very useful and should be encouraged. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) This is terrible - it makes it very difficult to edit these pages - I fell foul of this once already. User:Mark Richards 19:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) :How? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) : A plain cross-project redirect to the Wiktionary is what's impossible to edit (without hand-crafting the appropriate URL). This template makes it far easier to do so. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I find this a sneaky way to get around the rule the Wikipedia is not a dictionary (without claiming that was its intent). But if you don't like that rule, try to change it, and propose merging Wiktionary with Wikipedia, rather than working around it like this and then claiming the result is a compromise. It's a clear breaking of the rule. Pages consisting of nothing but weblinks are also supposedly discouraged here. And I don't see why Wikipedia should particularly link to Wiktionary or vice verse. This smells of preferring something because it is in-house rather than because it is best. You would also put links to other dictionaries on the page if you really wanted to give most value. We often give external links from articles to pages that have better and fuller discussions on the topic than Wikipedia does, and quite rightly. So do Encarta and Britannica. Are other external links to other dictionaries forbidden on these pages? Why? Who has decreed this and by what authority? Also articles are not supposed to consist of "Mere collections of external links" or "Mere collections of internal links". Is a collection of one not a collection? This appears to me to effectively break the policy of Wikipedia not being a dictionary and break the policy of Wikipedia and Wiktionary being separate and break the policy of articles not being mere web links. And by what rule are people prevented from now creating thousands of such pages is this is allowed? User:Jallan 01:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Considering what the text currently is for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistant_page nonexistant page] (click that to see, it links to wiktionary), I don't think this is much different, it simply confirms that indeed there ''is'' a definition of the term at wiktionary. This template is basically different boiler plate text for a currently empty entry. User:Siroxo—User:SiroxoUser talk:SiroxoSpecial:Contributions/Siroxo 04:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) : I don't look at these pages as primarily information (i.e. the Wikitionary link). If that's all they were, Jallan's points would be well taken. Rather, a main motivation for this template is to prevent the creation of (potentially duplicate) dicdef's. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 22:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Not so horrible, but not great either== There needs to be a way to exclude pages with this template on it from appearing on Special:Shortpages and from being counted as articles (all that is needed is a ''single'' internal link to be counted as an article; for example Flagrante delicto ''is'' counted as an article, which is absurd). These pages also need to be excluded from special:random page, otherwise that function will become useless when/if each Wiktionary entry has a corresponding page with the WI template on it here. At the same time these pages ''should'' show up in standard searches. --User:Maveric149 20:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Revert== I reverted back to the version with self references, as it better models [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asdfasdf a page like this] User:Siroxo—User:SiroxoUser talk:SiroxoSpecial:Contributions/Siroxo 00:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) :Reverted back. See wikipedia:avoid self references. The example you note is in part of the message system of the software and thus is changed automatically based on the site name. ''This'' template is placed on article pages. Use of ''Wikipedia'' makes the resulting article pages less useful to downstream users (who would want to remove such self-references). --User:Maveric149 17:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) :: Agree with mav. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 17:26, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC) == Deletion. == This template might provide a link to a wiktionary article that is certain to exist. But we should keep in mind that putting it on the page makes the link to the article blue, when there's in fact no article to read which hurts wikipedia. Also, empty pages provide a link to look up the term in Wiktionary, even if it's not certain the term is there. Wouldn't the right course of action be to simply create the entry at wiktionary, instead of using this template? Since Wikipedia's goal is to make an encyclopedia, I don't see how this template would help. User:MacGyverMagic|^{User_talk:MacGyverMagic}">User:MacGyverMagic|User:MacGyverMagic|^{User talk:MacGyverMagic} 12:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) :This template exists to facilitate border encyclopedia/dictionary cases. Please give me a shout if you would like it explained in detail/again/slowly. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 00:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) : A main motivation for this template is explicitly to prevent the creation of duplicate dicdef's; we ''don't want'' someone to create those articles. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Please, explain in detail, cause I think that if "There is no encyclopedia article for "Wi"." as the template states the article should be left as a red link which doesn't happen when the template is added to it. Maybe it needs a little rewording? User:MacGyverMagic|^{User_talk:MacGyverMagic}">User:MacGyverMagic|User:MacGyverMagic|^{User talk:MacGyverMagic} 09:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) :::On sober reflection my previous seems a bit odd. Apologies. :::The intent of the template is that it should be used when a title is border line encyclopedia/dictionary, and when the community consensus (cough) has determined that the title belongs on the dictionary side of the border. However people will go on creating links to this borderline article. If we don't have a template, someone will fill that red link with another dicdef, and the cycle begins again. Having a blue link, which as you suggest ''implicitly'' suggests we have an encyclopedia article (when in fact we have a pointer to a dictionary entry) is to my mind really no great loss at all compared to the gain of wasted effort battling over wikipedia/wiktionary. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 16:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

W