Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects

Don't use external links

{{editprotected}} To prevent the use of external links, I would like to change this template to:

Wikipedia is hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other [[Wikimedia:Our projects|projects]]:

{| class="layout" cellpadding="4" style="width:100%; margin:auto; text-align:left; background:transparent;"
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Commons-logo-31px.png|31px
default [[commons:|Commons]]
desc none</imagemap>
| style="width:33%;" | '''[[commons:|Commons]]'''<br />Free media repository
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikinews-logo-51px.png|51px
default [[n:|Wikinews]]
desc none</imagemap>
| style="width:33%;" | '''[[n:|Wikinews]]'''<br />Free-content news
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wiktionary-logo-51px.png|51px
default [[wikt:|Wiktionary]]
desc none</imagemap>
| style="width:33%;" | '''[[wikt:|Wiktionary]]'''<br />Dictionary and thesaurus
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png|51px
default [[q:|Wikiquote]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[q:|Wikiquote]]'''<br />Collection of quotations
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikibooks-logo-35px.png|35px
default [[b:|Wikibooks]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[b:|Wikibooks]]'''<br />Free textbooks and manuals
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikisource-logo-35px.png|35px
default [[s:|Wikisource]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[s:|Wikisource]]'''<br />Free-content library
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png|35px
default [[wikispecies:|Wikispecies]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[wikispecies:|Wikispecies]]'''<br />Directory of species
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Wikiversity-logo-41px.png|41px
default [[v:|Wikiversity]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[v:|Wikiversity]]'''<br />Free learning materials and activities
| style="text-align:center;" | <imagemap>File:Meta-logo-35px.png|35px
default [[m:|Meta-Wiki]]
desc none</imagemap>
| '''[[m:|Meta-Wiki]]'''<br />Wikimedia project coordination
|}<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

—MC10|Sign here! 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To see why the external-style link code is used, please compare the printable versions of the current template and your proposed revision. —David Levy 05:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Do the full URLs have to be shown in the span title? —MC10|Sign here! 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The benefit is that the sister projects' URLs appear in printed copies of the main page's "printable version," thereby informing readers of their locations. —David Levy 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Add alt text

{{editprotected}} As per WP:ALT and the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, the functional images in this template should have alt text. Could you please install the straightforward sandbox patch to do that? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Secure server

I intend to fix the links in this template so they work correctly also when viewed through the secure server. See discussion at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Secure server.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - The Main Page now has secure links for most of its inter-Wikimedia links, when using the secure server.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't play well with images

This template seems to create large amounts of whitespace when it is put near images, such as on WP:ALTOUT. I'm not sure if there is any solution to this if this template must not be flowable due to considerations on the front page. Gigs (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all: I think we should not add any fixes to this template itself, since its main purpose is to be used on the Main Page.

But about the box flow problem on your page:

Even worse, when using Firefox 2.0 and some other browsers, and a screen resolution of 1024x768 or higher, then the thumbnail above the "Sister projects" section in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets overlaps (covers) part of this template. This is a known box flow bug in some browsers. The simple way to fix that is to add a {{clear}} at the top of the template, or on the page. Then we who use Firefox etc will instead see the same whitespace above that section as the rest of you see.

But I guess you want the template to squeeze and flow to the left of the thumbnail. And yes, there is a method to do that that works in all browsers. We use that method for most of the templates in the mbox family, such as {{ambox}} and {{ombox}}. To test that the method also works in this case I changed the code in that section to this:

== Sister projects ==
{{ombox
| image = none
| style = margin: 0; border: none; background: transparent;
| text = {{WikipediaSister}}
}}

(The "style=" line is just to make it look good.) And it worked in all my browsers. But this is not intended use for {{ombox}} so I don't recommend using it like this. Instead for now I recommend just putting {{clear}} above the "Sister projects" section header on your page.

But I will think about this. Perhaps I should code up a transparent lightweight version of the mboxes, without border and with no image handling or other stuff, that only supplies this box flow fix.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast feedback. I suspected it would not be straightforward. Let me know if you come up with anything, and feel free to change WP:ALTOUT as needed. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have noted so in my to-do list. And I have added a {{clear}} above the section heading "Sister projects" in that page for now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Move request

{{movereq|Template:Wikipedia's sister projects}}

Template:WikipediaSister → Template:Wikipedia's sister projects — Should be changed for better readability. This template is rarely used, speaking of quantity, but used on the Main Page, so I think that it requires a discusssion. The template was created in 2006, when there have been thousands of different writing styles in template names. One used CamelCase, the other one wrote all in one word and so on, making things harder to remember. Nowadays, pretty much all uses the spelling how it's proper English, just like in the article titles. In this case, I'd propose a rename to "Wikipedia's sister projects": This is the section name how it's used on the Main Page, thus making it easy to identify. I generally also feel that these templates of that kind on the Main Page should best always reflect the corresponding section name, so should it ever be changed, this name should so, too. Of course, I could understand possible doubts about it being a Main Page template, but that shouldn't be any problem. We'd just have to move the template, just as we move any article. The created redirect will automatically be protected as long as this template is protected, so no space for a vandal to harm Wikipedia. We might then correct the redirect on the Main Page, but that wouldn't be necessary, since redirects are cheap. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Suggest {{Wikipedia sister projects}} as an alternative to the proposed change. PC78 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? The section's exact title is "Wikipedia's sister projects", and the term "Wikipedia sister projects" could contribute to the widespread misconception that the Wikimedia projects are parts of Wikipedia. I'll create a redirect at Template:Wikipedia sister projects, however (and if there turns out to be consensus for your suggestion, I'll swap it in as the template's actual name). —David Levy 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like a simpler name for the template, and I don't see how it could contribute to any such misconception. :S As the template is not used exclusively by the main page, I don't fully understand the logic in naming it after the main page section title. It was just a suggestion, I don't oppose the move, though I might have given discussion a bit longer than 81 minutes before being bold and doing it anyway. PC78 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "bold" to describe such a minor, inconsequential change. The old names were unintuitive and inconsistent, so moving the templates is harmless at worst. As noted above, if different names are decided upon, they can simply be moved again.

The templates are viewed vastly more often via the main page than they are via other pages, so the headings used there are the most intuitive titles possible (which users seeking the templates are likely to try, and possibly even copy and paste). {{Wikipedia sister projects}} contains two fewer characters, but it's much less likely to be guessed (because it arbitrarily deviates from the label that most users see, thereby defeating the purpose behind these moves). If our goal were brevity (as opposed to consistency/intuitiveness), {{sister projects}} would be even shorter.

Of course, the existence of redirects renders this mostly academic, except for the aforementioned misconception that the Wikimedia projects are parts of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia's" is possessive, so its use in the context of "sister projects" is likely to be interpreted accordingly (sisters of Wikipedia). Conversely, "Wikipedia sister projects" can be interpreted as "sister projects that are parts of Wikipedia" (just as "the Smith sisters" are sisters in the Smith family). —David Levy 19:54/19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of complaints about this, I wouldn't expect these similar changes to be controversial. As noted above, there really isn't any harm at all, so I'll go ahead and move the templates. —David Levy 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't yet see this, but thanks for moving. I think the redirect solution in this case is perfectly working. --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetized order

I think it would look better, and be easier to see and locate, if the sister projects were in alphabetical order. This would make sense in an encyclopedia. Please see the updated code in the sandbox. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Meta location

Can Meta be moved to a more prominent location, say, right after Commons? The other projects are mostly-separate from Wikipedia, while what happens on Commons and on Meta can (at least occasionally) directly affect us. It would also make sense alphabetically, of course, as the others all start with "Wiki" in the listing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it, and have taken a stab (that someone else should double and triple check) in the sandbox, but ... I'm not putting it up myself without more voices. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That code looks fine (creating a sandbox draft slipped my mind for some reason, thanks!). I didn't just make the change for the same reason - an extra pair of eyes or two couldn't hurt. But {{editprotected}} b/c it should be uncontroversial. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Question: Before actioning this, I'd like to ask why the proposed version is a significant regression? Compared to the current version, it uses protocol-absolute URLs instead of protocol-relative, and also uses the old secure server https://secure.wikimedia.org/.

Less importantly, there are also variations in column width management: the present version sets width:33%; to the three cells in the top row, whilst the proposed version sets this on the first cell in the top row, but the second and third cells in the second row. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if his modification was based on an outdated sandbox draft? I've thrown an updated draft into the sandbox (synced it and then made the changes). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata went live today, and so should be included in this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the sitenotice, it's "not yet fully functional, we are still setting things up." I suspect it's not yet completely ready for the traffic that would result from it being linked to from the Wikipedia Main Page, so I would suggest waiting a bit. Also, it doesn't even have an interwiki prefix yet. --Yair rand (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's a live, official Wikimedia Foundation project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As much as I love Wikidata, I'm uncomfortable about encouraging people via the Main Page to contribute to a database which might be reset. Perhaps best to wait a week or two, for confirmation from the technical people that everything is fine and that contributions will be safe. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with WFC on this. We need to make sure it's stable, first. The Signpost has already put out the word that it's live. That'll drive traffic over from our most experienced users (and the ones most likely no not be turned off if things go haywire. In a few weeks we can do a bigger, public rollout. This is also Sven Manguard 19:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm supportive of more immediate inclusion, but most here seem to be advocating for at least a short waiting period. In the meantime, why don't we focus on exactly how to integrate Wikidata once it's ready? We currently have 9 projects spread nicely in a 3×3 matrix. With Wikidata, that will become 10. How should we lay them out? I suggest that we not disrupt the nice 3×3 matrix, but introduce a new row below the others and center Meta-Wiki there, with Wikidata taking its spot (though I don't particularly mind how projects are arranged in that matrix). {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is also becoming a sister project, so we should consider that as well. –sumone10154^(talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have Commons and Meta together, then, as suggested earlier? 11 is an awkward number to arrange. I'd suggest having the two centred on their own row, but that wouldn't play well with the current table format, so left-aligned seems OK. I'm not too picky about which goes with Meta, but the discussion section immediately above offers a decent enough justification. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively we could add Mediawiki to the list. Mediawiki is a pretty important project, in my opinion, and I don't see why we leave it out. --Yair rand (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

please add a link to wikidata on this template --TheChampionMan1234 05:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

See the template's sandbox for a mocked-up version (obviously NOT ready to copy across). Note that (a) the interwiki links on the images don't appear to work yet, and (b) Wikivoyage's logo hasn't been decided yet. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the below section it's mentioned that Wikivoyage won't be "formally" launched for a while. Can we add Wikidata to the list with my original suggestion of isolating Meta-Wiki, in the meantime? We can add in Wikivoyage (perhaps with Yair rand's good suggestion of MediaWiki as well, for symmetry) once that's formally live. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a permalink to my mockup. It preserves the top-to-bottom, left-to-right alphabetical ordering, while taking Meta-Wiki out of the order to highlight its, well, meta status. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 08:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That would reverse the move of Meta into alphabetic position which was only just over three months ago, see section immediately above. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. My reasoning is that if any single project is to be isolated from the others visually, it should be Meta. When Wikivoyage is added later, we can move it back. It's no big deal, I feel. I'd have done it already, but I'd like some degree of consensus before editing something on the Main Page. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 07:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why we use alphabetical ordering. It was discussed briefly above, but it seems like an unnecessary case of pedantry. I really think Wikinews does not deserve its top-centre spot - for goodness' sake, it already has another link on the Main Page (from "in the news"). Really, the three biggest sister projects, Commons, Wiktionary and (which is the third biggest? Wikisource? Wikiquote? Maybe Wikivoyage, once officially launched?) should be across the top.

Or, if you want a different measure, we could sort them by Alexa ranking, which gives an order of Commons+Wikispecies+Meta (these are inseparable with Alexa data), Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikinews, the not-yet-established Wikivoyage, and Wikidata easily in last place (it's not really a reader-facing site after all!). Common sense would suggest to put Commons first and species/meta last. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} Wikidata now has over half a million items and phase 1 is in full working order. I think it is time to add it to the sister projects template. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please supply a logo and slogan first. As well, please suggest a location: at the bottom of the first column, at the top of the second, or something else? Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo, Slogan: "Free knowledge base". Bottom of middle column would make the pattern symmetrical. Along the lines of this. Either that or two rows of 5, but that may be a bit cramped. Thanks very much. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a good idea to add it yet. Maybe we should wait until things are a bit more stable. --Yair rand (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

Please add link and a logo to WV site in the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.128.45 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not officially launching Wikivoyage until December when bugs are ironed out and there is a new logo, so it would be best if the addition to the template is done then. That may also give time for the Wikidata people to get their wiki sorted out for addition to the template. JamesA ^>talk 10:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We are looking at Jan 15th, 2013 as the official launch date of Wikivoyage. Wikidata is thinking of officially launching around the same time. Can we add on this date? If no objection I can try to format things properly. Anyway checking with Lydia to make sure this will work for wikidate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have created an example of what it would look like if Wikidata, Wikivoyage, and Mediawiki where added User:Jmh649/Sister sites. Not set on the ordering. They can be adjusted as people see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We could also use something similar to this [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Option 1

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

	Commons Free media repository		Wikinews Free-content news		Wikivoyage Open travel guide		Wikispecies Directory of species
	Wikidata Free knowledge base		Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikiversity Free learning materials and activities		Mediawiki Mediawiki software development
	Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals		Wikisource Free-content library		Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus		Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination

Option 2

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:
Meta-Wiki Coordination	Wikivoyage Travel guide	Wiktionary Dictionary	Wikiquote Quotations	Wikisource Documents	Wikibooks Textbooks	Wikiversity Learning tools	Wikinews News reports	Commons Media files	Wikispecies Species	Wikidata Structured data

Option 3

	Commons Free media repository		MediaWiki Free software development		Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination
	Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals		Wikidata Free knowledge base		Wikinews Free-content news
	Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikisource Free-content library		Wikispecies Directory of species
	Wikiversity Free learning materials and activities		Wikivoyage Open travel guide		Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus

Option 4

	Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus		Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikibooks Textbooks and manuals
	Wikisource Free-content library		Commons Free media repository		Wikispecies Directory of life forms
	Wikinews News reports		Wikiversity Learning materials and activities		Wikivoyage Travel guide

Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination

Incubator Test projects in other languages

MediaWiki MediaWiki software development

Wikidata Free knowledge base

Discussion

I am happy with either. Wondering what others thoughts are? Not preference on the ordering. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I hugely prefer the more compact layout of the second one. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither option 1 nor option 2 will work well at lower resolutions. We can maintain the current level of compatibility by simply adding a fourth row to the longstanding layout (as in option 3). —David Levy 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I still prefer dropping Meta from the current 3x3 layout and putting WVoy in its place. Meta-Wiki, Wikidata, and MediaWiki are projects for editors, not for readers. Powers ^T 12:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea. In fact, I'd have to say that I prefer it over any of the layouts suggested above. —David Levy 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better to me.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 12:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata is about as much for readers as Commons is, I think. --Yair rand (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Option 2 would be too small and crowded for many uses. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a 4th option that retains the current-style 3×3 grid for the main content projects (here listed in chronological order by date opened) but adds a smaller-format list of coordination and support type wikis below it. Better? Perhaps? - dcljr (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Option 4 is the best one. It highlights the Wikimedia projects for user by readers, but doesn't mask over the editing work that goes on in the background. I would argue that Wikidata will eventually also be for use by users as well as editors, particularly in the generation of customised lists, but we can change that when we get there. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep some recognition for all the editing efforts that take place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but the layout could use improvement (perhaps better demarcation and some sort of explicit explanation of the distinction).

I don't know whether the chronological order is part of the proposal, but I'll note that I strongly prefer keeping the list alphabetical. —David Levy 09:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree lets keep it alphabetical.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 would be my preference, for making best use of space — although switching Meta for Voyage would be equally satisfactory. All these proposals would be made clearer and more scannable by giving the project descriptions a lower visual hierarchy, for example smaller / lighter text as seen in the footer here. — Pretzels ^Hii! 22:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 makes the best use of space on your screen (and mine), but it relies on space that's nonexistent at low resolutions. —David Levy 01:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Option 3 would work well at various screen resolutions, and includes all the projects. --Aude (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree prefer option 3. We need to use the main page to attract further contributors just a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Description of Commons ambiguous

Please hyphenate "free media". --FrankDev (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Already done by Crisco 1492. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Add Wikivoyage (edit request)

Please replace the contents of this template with the contents of User:David Levy/Sister projects, per discussion two sections above. Powers ^T 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome to the family! James F. (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata interwiki link

Please fix the link of Wikidata at the picture. Thanks! --kwan-in (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done: Not knowing the correct interwiki shortcut (see Help talk:Interwikimedia links#Wikidata), I've de-linked the picture - the text link works though. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the correct link (d:). —David Levy 15:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is is "free"

Wikivoyage is currently listed as a "Open travel guide", and should be changed to "Free travel guide". Currently it is different compared to all of the other entries, which use "free _____". Additionally, voy:Main Page says "...the free, worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit." Legoktm (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki: Free software development?

The description of MediaWiki is misleading. It's not free software development (as in developing any random, free software); it's free information about a certain wiki software (MediaWiki). Should this be changed to something else? If so, what should the new description be? According to mw:Project:About, "This wiki is for the documentation, discussion and development of the MediaWiki software", but that's obviously way too long to use as is. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking above at some previous template designs above, "MediaWiki software development" seems like a good description. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But it's redundant, as the link already reads "MediaWiki". How about "Wiki software development"? This also seems more informative, as many people familiar with the meaning of "wiki" don't know what MediaWiki is. —David Levy 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good option, and I agree that "MediaWiki software development" is a bit redundant. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made the change. —David Levy 04:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

This is a suggestion for a different layout for the template the following is the new template.

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

	Commons Free media repository		MediaWiki Wiki software development		Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination		Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals
	Wikidata Free knowledge base		Wikinews Free-content news		Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikisource Free-content library
	Wikispecies Directory of species		Wikiversity Free learning materials and activities		Wikivoyage Free travel guide		Wiktionary Dictionary & thesaurus

compared to

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

	Commons Free media repository		MediaWiki Wiki software development		Meta-Wiki Wikimedia project coordination
	Wikibooks Free textbooks and manuals		Wikidata Free knowledge base		Wikinews Free-content news
	Wikiquote Collection of quotations		Wikisource Free-content library		Wikispecies Directory of species
	Wikiversity Free learning materials and activities		Wikivoyage Free travel guide		Wiktionary Dictionary and thesaurus

Found this style on the Wikivoyage home page. Design credit: Pretzels. - Surfer43 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. This was discussed quite recently, see #Wikivoyage above. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to establish consensus. This has nothing to do with the discussion above, as WikiVoyage is already listed on the main page/template. This was just a proposed style change. Surfer (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Even so, {{edit protected}} should not be used to establish consensus - it should only be used once consensus has been established, or for uncontroversial changes. More at WP:EDITREQ. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Surfer (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it. However, having four on a line doesn't look very nice on less-wide screens. Perhaps we could do something with CSS queries to make it three to a line on certain screens? --Yair rand (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Yair rand, Surfer, and Pretzels: (and from the #Wikivoyage thread above) @JamesA, Jmh649, Pashley, David Levy, and LtPowers: @Vanischenu, Dcljr, Delusion23, and Aude: See Talk:Main Page#A more visually appealing sister projects template where this idea has been re-raised. :) –Quiddity (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Support I have a very narrow screen. I think the four on a line looks better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

New Wikivoyage logo (change for legal reasons)

Please change the template to use File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg. πr² (t • c) 03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jamesofur and Jalexander: maybe you can do this? πr² (t • c) 03:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Jalexander--WMF 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also updated the instances used on this talk page for demo purposes, since they were not demos of the image itself, but demos of proposed arrangements for the various sister projects. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)