Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects

WikiTree?!?!?

There is no Template for links to WikiTree and I dont know how to make templates . . .

Original suggestion.

The original discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump:

[C]urrently links to Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks show up like links to any other project. How about creating nice little boxes for these types of links? As an example, a Wikiquote link:

{{wikiquote|quotename=Galileo Galilei|quotelink=Galileo_Galilei}}

This could be right-aligned with the "External links" section.

What do you think? Overkill? Too much like a banner?--Eloquence *

Too big, but otherwise a good idea. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. Could add to a possible 'Internal Links' section. :D

I've improved the template and put it in use on the Galileo Galilei page. This is what it should look like. I've also created Template:Bookshelf for Wikibooks, which is currently in use on Mathematics. I'm sure these look ugly in some browsers, so please help to improve them.--Eloquence *

I added it to George W. Bush. It actually looks very nice. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it looks fine using PC/Win browsers IE5.5, Netscape 7.1, Opera 7.02, Firefox 0.8, and Mozilla 1.4. Niteowlneils 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other WikiMedia projects.

A nice idea, but what if something has links to both Wikiquote and Wikibooks? Then what? Dysprosia 09:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I really like this. Integrates the wikimedia family. I really don't care if we have multiple links; it adds to the professionalism of the pages. ChrisG 12:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about something like this?

See also our articles on Wikipedia's sister projects: Wikibooks | Wiktionary

Except I don't happen to have any 16×16 images of the logos, which would fit well. (Wikiquote logo doesn't want to be resized to 16px. :() [ alerante | “” 14:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ]

Something like this if we need multiple project and the more specific box if there's just one, I'd say.-Eloquence *

Just throwing out an idea - I think we should keep the text to a minimum, even by only having the picture and it itself is the link. Then if there was more than one they could stack sideways. If people want some text, the caption over it could read "more on...". Also a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate for some articles. LUDRAMAN | T 17:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I think I made this suggestion a while ago but no-one took any notice - I guess you need a picture to catch people's eyes :-). Its times like this I wish I wasn't so hapless with images :-(.

I also think it's a great idea. For what it's worth, I have considered making an interwiki box for plants/animals with up-to the following links:

Wikipedia article (apple)

Wiktionary entry

Wikibooks Dichotomous Key

Wikibooks Field Guide

Wikibooks Cookbook

Wikiquote Quotes concerning apples

It may be worth experimenting with similar ideas. I don't see any problem with promoting other WikiMedia links when available. Tuf-Kat 06:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Multiple Wikiquote links

What is to be done when there is more than one appropriate article on Wikiquotes to link to? For example, an actor might have quotes against their own name, and against more than one programme in which they appeared (Caroline Dhavernas and Wonderfalls being the example(s) which have prompted my question. There seems to be a problem-ette with the table syntax in the wikiquote(par) templates which stops them stacking nicely. --Phil | Talk 16:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

The magic word is "<br clear=all>". This makes all left-floating or right-floating items finish floating before the next line. So you could say, for instance, the following.

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
<br clear=all>
{{wikiquotepar}} [[Wonderfalls]]
* [www.wikipedia.com First link] . . .

Hope this helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not really, since the result would be almost exactly not what I would want. As it is the first non-template item is shown level with the top of the second template:

                 Template 1
Non-Template 1   Template 2

rather than level with the first as I want:

Non-Template 1   Template 1
                 Template 2

whereas the suggested addition of <br clear=all> would shove it further down:

                 Template 1
                 Template 2
Non-Template 1

Which kind-of destroys the idea of having the templates "float". --Phil | Talk 09:18, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried "<p align=right>{{wikiquote}} {{wikiquotepar}} [[Wonderfalls]] </p>"? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:44, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Misc..

I think it's a great idea! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia centric.

Would this box be in articles? If so I very strongly oppose doing that since it is Wikimedia-centric. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --mav 00:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created that page :-). However, in this instance I think we can make an exception, particularly since this data is stored in templates and can easily be changed for all affected pages. We should have a "mirror and fork howto" anyway, and a a list of Wikimedia-specific templates could be part of it. I really have no problem if the mirrors who put no effort into their setup inadvertently do some free advertising for our project, we should just make it easy for those who do put effort into it to get rid of the Wikimedia references.--Eloquence *

I really like the {{wikiquote}} box; thanks to those responsible! — Matt 10:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Different article names.

{{wikiquote|WikiQuote article name which differs from WikiPedia article name}} for e.g.: Firefly (television series) vs. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Firefly. -- Jeandré, 2004-09-10t20:28z

Use Template:Wikiquotepar.--Patrick 21:29, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

No Wikiquote ads, please

Recently, I've been noticing in articles on my watchlist that people are putting a graphically-decorated box, essentially an advertisement, for the related Wikiquote article. I think this is not a good idea at all, and would like to make my case here. I see three reasons.

Deciding the prominence (for example, the order) of the external links should be an editorial judgment, based on which links are most important or useful to readers. This judgment should not be overridden by an external policy that automatically gives far greater prominence to a link that may be less important, or even (for stub Wikiquotes) nearly useless.

The implications of putting ads in encyclopedia articles are disturbing. I assume we all agree on what an encyclopedia stands for--facts, scholarly care, objectivity. In contrast, to me at least, ads stand for hype, often even deceit (think about your spam e-mail for a minute, which the Wikiquote box graphically resembles). We're scholars, not PR people, and we shouldn't be feeding our readers any sort of hype at all.

Lastly, there's an issue of who is in a position to make better editorial decisions. What I see here is a particular group of editors, filled with enthusiasm for their new idea, doing quick edits on a large number of articles. In contrast, for the individual articles, there are often people who have spent many hours thinking about the article, revising and polishing it. Such editors should have their wishes respected, I think, if they believe the Wikiquote box hurts the article. (If by chance, the Wikiquote inserter happens to know the topic and carefully studies the existing article, then of course she is entitled to an equal say.)

Two of the advocates of these ads have told me that using the Wikiquote ads is an actual Wikipedia policy. As you know, this is not true; it has never been put up for a public vote. If you want to do this, the appropriate location apparently is here, and you should use clear, unambiguous language, like "It is resolved that use of the Wikiquote box is henceforth compulsory."

The upshot is: if there is ever a formal proposal, voted on publicly, that makes use of the Wikiquote ads compulsory, I will comply with it, since I believe in democracy. For now, I will consider myself legally in the clear to behave quixotically, and occasionally remove the boxes from my favorite articles.

Yours very truly, Opus33 17:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I want to take issues with a couple of minor things. Bear with me here.

First, I don't like calling it an ad. That's a loaded term, and it isn't accurate. (It's not an advertisement, since it isn't selling anything.) It may look like an ad to you, but since Google uses text ads so extensively, one could just as easily say that a selection of text looks like an ad.
Second, I think I'm one of the "advocates of these ads" you mention, although I never said that "using the Wikiquote ads is an actual Wikipedia policy" – in fact, I specifically said here that it wasn't a written policy. It's just the standard way to link to wikiquote.
Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't go by majority rule; we go by consensus. Polls are taken to determine consensus, so we'll all know what it is, but it's the consensus that we go by. You can tell what the consensus is by starting up a poll, or you can tell by simply looking at the way people tend to do things. Either is legitimate.
Nothing is "compulsory" here; you don't have to contribute at all. But if you write articles in one way, and the consensus is to do it another way, you're going to have a lot of contributers overwriting your changes with what they see as a better way of doing it.

As to whether the box is ugly, or detracts from the primary-author's intent, or whether it takes away an author's freedom to sort the external links by order of importance. . . you may have a point there. I'm not sure. I'll wait to see what the consensus is. By the way, just so you know, when I see an article with a wikiquote text-link, I usually assume the authors didn't know that a box-link was available, so I put one in. If someone changes it back to a text-link, I won't revert (anymore). – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Quadell, for your courteous and thoughtful response. A few points of agreement and disagreement:

You're right, "ad" is a loaded term, though I do think it aptly expresses the impression the boxes can create.
You're also right that your earlier revert of my box-removal didn't invoke a policy (perhaps we can say you invoked a consensus...). The other guy's did invoke a policy, and I shouldn't have confused the two of you.
"Nothing is 'compulsory' here; you don't have to contribute at all." Ouch! For me, the threat of having to give up Wikipedia editing would definitely count as a form of compulsion. (It would solve my wikiholism problem, though.)

All this relates to the issue of how compulsion works, or should work, in the Wikipedia--the links you provided on this point were interesting. For me, voting justifies compulsion better than consensus does, since it's clearer. Yours truly, Opus33 17:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Modification to the Wikisource Templates

Some time ago (during the past 36 hours, I tend to believe) I embarked on a series of modifications to all templates relating to Wikisource. These included adding the clearer-named {{Wikisource author}}, {{Wikisource full}} (and derivatives thereof) and {{Wikisource partial}}, and changing all highly-informative existing templates (Wikisource, src and srca - see if you can guess what each means) to redirects to either of these free. This campaign also included adding the newly created templates (mostly Wikisource full) to many articles; a brief surveys of links to each will show this. This morning, User:Netoholic started unilaterally reverting my changes. As he rightly pointed out, there has been no discussion preceding these changes. This is what I wish to do here. My vision for the Wikisource templates is found at User:Itai/Wikisource (into which is was backuped; it is found still in the history of Wikipedia:Wikisource). I must ask that all those who take interest in this go over this, and that a plan be formed to deprecate the old tags and substitute them with better-named, more informative, equivalents. -- Itai 16:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll start. The current phrasing of Template:Wikisource is awful. "Wikisource has original text from: Peer Gynt" is not correct. The correct phrasing is "Wikisource has original text of: Peer Gynt". This bad phrasing is the sole reason for the creation of Template:Wikisource partial - presumably Wikisource has partial text of this piece. Template:Wikisource full solved, before it was changed into a redirect, this problem, proclaiming that Wikisource has the full text of the item at hand. I do hope that someone will reply so that Wikisource full will be reverted soon back into its original, correct shape. -- Itai 17:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your aggressiveness lead to a jumble of templates and sub-templates that will be nigh-impossible to keep consistent across articles and keep formatted in a repeatable way. Regardless of the wording, we only need three Wikisource reference templates: one which uses PAGENAME for the title, one that uses PAGENAME for the Author:, and one generic one for the corner cases. Each template should be formatted identically, with variation only in the wording ("original text from" and "original works written by"). We do not need an extra template to add a "the", we do not need ones to designate partial text vs. full text availability. Doing this sort of thing leads to instruction creep, and makes maintenance unbearable (by having to make 6-7 changes where only 3 are needed). Wanting to rename the templates (from src and srca) is a fine idea, but you must remember that template insertion should be as easy as possible. If I am editing an article, how am I to remember what template to use if you name it like "Template:Wikisource full (the)" or "Template:Wikisource availability". No, keep the templates simple, or they become useless. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the term "aggressiveness", but never mind that. "Wikisource availability" I agree was ill conceived, and as you surely saw was deprecated by me before this discussion. I'm also willing to concede that "Wikisource full (the)" could be done without (at one point I was tempted to create a "Wikisource full (Shakespeare)" to deal with the fact that Wikipedia lists Shakespeare's play as, for instance, "Romeo and Juliet", whereas Wikisource lists them as "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet"). I do not agree, however, with the statement that the difference between full and partial text can ignored. At best, the default template can be made to say that the full text is available at Wikisource. (I have never seen a case in which only partial text was available - "Wikisource partial" was entirely legacy, made to deal, just in case, with the badly phrased original statement, and I have never added it to an article on my own. I also must emphasize anew that "Wikisource has original text from: Peer Gynt" just isn't acceptable when the full text is available.) What I suggest is having four templates, one for full availability, one for partial, one for authorship and one variable, answering, respectively, to the names "Wikisource full", "Wikisource partial", "Wikisource author" and, possibly, "Wikisource variable" (not the ideal name, but far better than the awkwardness of "Wikisource full (name)". Feel free to suggest any other name), the latter excepting one or two parameters (a two-parameter template will allow for a name different than the Wikisource name to be presented in Wikipedia - that is, links that look something like [[Wikisource:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]; a one-parameter template will be much the easier to use). All occurrences of "Wikisource full (the)" will then be substitutes with properly phased "Wikisource variable"s, leading to "Wikisource full (the)"'s deletion. All original templates will be changed into redirects, and a mention of their deprecated status be made in Wikipedia:Wikisource. Deal? -- Itai 18:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My preferred arrangement involving three templates is documented on the Sister projects page. I don't see any need at all for a "partial" vs "full" text distinction. Maybe it is a difference in the grammar that you learned, but "Wikisource has original text from:" can apply generically enough. Our readers are pretty smart, and a slight grammar problem is no reason to make it harder for the editors to work. You're ideas only seek to make the concept more complex, rather than better. Three Wikisource reference templates, no more. -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that the use of templates, tempting though it may be, should not come at the expense of grammar. However, this can be solved easily enough. Three templates (author, text, variable), with the "text" template using a "copy of" or "full text of". (There are very few true "partial" cases - I have been able to spot just one, at Mishnah - and these can be dealt with without a template.) To top it all, I'll even throw in a free spare tire. Are we agreed? (We still have to decide on the names and the number of parameters for however-we'll-call "Wikisource variable", but, as long as the names are informative, I do not feel strongly on either subject.) -- Itai 19:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Project links poll

Poll will end on November 18, 2004.

The various project links found in the headers of this page originally linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article (e.g. Wiktionary). I have taken the liberty of changing them to the corresponding Wikipedia: namespace article (e.g. Wikipedia:Wiktionary), assuming that this would be more useful. User:Netoholic has reverted this, however, so I figured we'd best have a vote. Do you support having the headers link to the Wikipedia: namespace article?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't see any links in headers on this page. What are you referring to? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Who is the first person "I" in this poll question? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

"I" is Itai. As for the headers, see this diff to see how this page used to look like. The sister projects pages in the Wikipedia: namespace used to look like: [1]. This poll basically discusses whether we should have the a unified list of all templates related to sister projects on this page, or keep them on seperate pages. -- Itai 20:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support (change)

Itai 00:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Phil | Talk 11:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia: namespace articles have all been converted into REDIRECTs here, which has mucked up the tables because of the template expansion limit (on template:template NETL). Until such time as this is fixed, these articles should be separated out again, and each section should link to both places; the section header should be de-linked. --Phil | Talk 13:40, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  - template:template NETL is junk (because of the limit of five instances of a template on a page, and I've gotten rid of it from this page. Any objections now? -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Oppose (keep as it is)

Obviously, keeping this information on a central page is far more desirable than multiple ones. -- Netoholic @ 16:54, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Comment

I still can't make the slightest sense of this. You are taking a poll on something you've described in three sentences, obviously assuming familarity with a context that is totally opaque to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Right. I'll do my best to explain. The question, at the moment, is basically this: at the moment, Wikipedia:Sister projects contains all templates concerning all sister projects. In the past, these templates were distributed across several pages (the templates relating to Wikisource, for instance, being found in Wikipedia:Wikisource). The question is basically which way it should be. For reference, see the following diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- Itai 10:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That helps only a little. Could someone -- maybe not Itai, because he has now tried several times to explain this to me and I still don't get it -- give me maybe a 4-5 sentence summary of what each proposal looks like? In particular, the question is asked, "Do you support having the headers link to the Wikipedia: namespace article?" I have absolutely no idea what a "header" is supposed to be in this respect. To me, a "header" is the portion of an HTML page outside of the body, but that is obviously not what is meant here.

Is the proposed change only a change to this page or to several pages? From what Itai says, I suspect the latter, but nothing in the question as it is posed lets me understand even what pages are affected, let alone what the effects on those pages will be.

In short, someone (Itai as I remember it) put a question on the Village Pump asking us in general to vote on some matter, but the matter is phrased in a way that is certainly opaque to me, and (judging by the lack of votes) probably to almost everyone who hasn't been directly involved in the controversy.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think anybody else cares. You don't mind me giving it another attempt, do you? The reason the poll is such a mass is that it originally referred to the changes [6] and [7] (the former being my own, the latter a reversal by Netoholic). After the poll was in place ([8]), however, Netoholic merged the contents of Wikipedia:Wikisource, Wikipedia:Wikiquote and Wikipedia:Wiktionary into Wikipedia:Sister projects, this necessitating a change of the poll. It might have been wiser to scrap the poll altogether at the time, but I admit I was mad at what I saw as misconduct on Netoholic's part and did not do so. If you like, I don't mind scrapping the poll as it is and starting it anew. (It's not like it has gathered many votes.) -- Itai 01:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the two different alternatives people are being asked to choose between. I myself will simply let this go, and will now remove this page from my watchlist. (Ping me if you need me.) I was here only because you raised a question on the Village Pump asking us to come vote on this, and I found I couldn't make head or tail of what I was being asked to vote on. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Rationalising

However we do it, there needs to be some massive rationalisation. There are 8 "Sister projects". For each one, there needs to be one template for "stuff to be moved there", and at most two templates for "you can find a related article there": one where the names correspond directly, and another where they do not.

Move to

I propose a master template like this (which I snitched from {{Move to Wikisource}} BTW):

<div name="Merger notice" class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #fcf; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px;">
'''This page is a candidate to be [[{{{target}}}:Things to be moved to {{{target}}}|moved]] to [[{{{target}}}]].'''
<br>
If the page can be [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|edited]] into an encyclopedic article,
rather than merely a {{{currentcontent}}},
please do so and remove this message.
<br>
Otherwise, you can help by formatting it per the
[[{{{target}}}:{{{target}}}:Help|{{{target}}} guidelines]] in preparation for the move.
</div>

which when invoked by {{...|target=Wikisource|currentcontent=merely a copy of the source text}} produces: Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects/template move-to

Comments/discussion

This is a simplified proposal: I actually really like what Netoholic did with {{wikibookspar}} here which allowed access to different sub-projects within Wikibooks, and when I have some more time I'd like to see if that could be incorporated into this framework. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 11:51, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Using meta-templates is a bad process. I agree on standardization, and simplifying the sister project links, and this meta-template will only serve to defeat that goal. Complexity and m:Instruction creep are insidious. I have already said that there is (some) drain on the DB when calling a meta-template since there must be an extra read and more computation. Its probably neglible, but as these templates are used on more and more pages, it adds up and is avoidable. Also, whenever this meta-template is changed every page using one of the child templates will be purged from the cache and have to be re-read. This is another avoidable drain. I am willing to work hard for any solution which avoids these pitfalls, and will work equally hard to quell the creep. This template (like every one Itai has created) is poorly planned and badly considered. -- Netoholic @ 15:20, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

I support Phil's plan in its entirety. Netoholic's formatting at [9] can be reproduced using meta-templates. -- Itai 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, then we both agree that Template:Sisterproject can be deleted? You did read his plan, which describes a process which actually doesn't require a meta-template, right? -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Well, that's not how I understand "I propose a master template..." and "I propose using something like template:sisterproject...". Anyway, I'm afraid that Phil's plan to rationalize this is going haywire. (On the off chance that someone who's not familiar with the conflict is reading this, a poll is currently going on regarding Template:Sisterproject at WP:TFD. Wikipedia's (mostly) a democracy! Go vote!) -- Itai 16:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

His method does not require a meta-template - none of this really does. That TFD "vote" is simply to determine if we delete your template or not. Do not assume it means there is consensus to use it now or in the future. This is where we discuss that. Why is it you feel this needs to be immediately addressed? -- Netoholic @ 16:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Whether it "requires" or not, that is what he suggested, that is what I support. The TFD vote will determine whether the template is to be used - people are not voting for keeping it just to take care of all that nasty free space on Wikipedia servers. If you wanted to discuss it here (as I suggested on numerous occasions), you should have done so. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to Tibet to become a Buddhist monk. -- Itai 16:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to do can clearly be done with or without meta templates. Please do it with meta templates, so that there's only one place instead of 8 or more places where I have to ensure that icons display with alt=" " for the benefit of text browsers. I do not believe that the server performance impact outweighs human convenience. —AlanBarrett 21:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Precisely: the machines are there to serve us, rather than the other way around. --Phil | Talk 12:19, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Percentages

Should the text contained in the Template Wikibookspar be kept at 90% size or changed to 100% size (or some other size)? And if so, why? -- 67.81.191.226; 21:46, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Survey

A survey regarding part of the above plan is in place at Template talk:Sisterproject#Survey. Go vote! — Itai (f&t) 21:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commons templates stable?

Template:Commonscat "looks" broken but seems Ok when I use it, but it is correct to have the logo in due to the server impact?

Or should it be commented out like this as in Template:Commons :

 Please make sure the issues detailed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_server_overload_2005-03
 are resolved before removing this comment and restoring the image.
 [[Image:CommonsLogo.png|50px|none|Commons]]

-Wikibob | Talk 02:12, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Why are there 2 versions.of this page?

One here and one at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Links#Sister_projects are they the same or what. Also shouldn't this be a sub article of Wikipedia:Template_messages. I was just wondering. --Michael180 17:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews template

While I don't mind efforts to promote sister projects, what good is this template in the context of Wikipedia? The practice makes sense for Wikiquote or Wikisource, but the stuff on Wikinews is explicitly not durable, and thus much less useful to feature in this way. For example, the article on Pope John Paul II uses this to link to a news article reporting his death, which at this point is definitely not news anymore.

A more sensible approach for linking to Wikinews might be to incorporate it into Template:Current, or create a variation thereof, so that people will feel prompted to remove it after a suitable interval. --Michael Snow 30 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Links

This page should also describe how to link to content in other Wikimedia's projects, e.g. use [[commons:Main Page]] etc. --Eleassar my talk 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For this you can use par generally. I.e. {{Wikiquote|Main page}} links to Wikiquote Main Page (Warning: sorry, NOT ALL the templates uses the par complement of the name in this logical and coherent sense!!).

Move to Wikisource

The {{Move to Wikisource}} template links to the page s:Things to be moved to Wikisource, which doesn't exist. Did it ever exist, and is there a page on WS which does the intended job? sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence

I suggest use the template without parameters for an automatic link (i.e. Wikiquote) and with parameters (wikiquotepar) for a manual link for ALL the sister projects templates. This is very important for an easy, logical and coherent lerning on wikipedia use.

WikiAdvice

I think there should be a Wikiadvice,especially for the articles with pets,or something.Or advice on love and dating,maybe.User:66.217.36.86; 27 October 2005.(UTC)

Sibling projects?

Is there some reason that {sisterlinks} refers to "Sibling projects"? Find more information on Page name here by searching one of Wikipedia's sibling projects: This is surely just an oversight, not some sort of malicious PC-ness, no? Stevage 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. [10] —Cryptic (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location for sister project templates

Every sister project template that I've ever seen has followed the long standing advice in this guideline to put the templates in the External links section. Now User:Uncle G has decided to change that. I see no consensus for that change, and no reason for the change. I would like to the opinions of other Wikipedians. ^Blank ^Verse 13:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed what this guide says, not what we do. The guide is, simply, wrong. What we do is, and has been for a long time, is place the notices next to the things that they relate to. Wikinews links are next to the discussion of the event. Wikiquote links are next to where quotations are mentioned. Wikisource links are next to where lyrics or the actual text of a historical document are mentioned. Wikibooks links to annotated texts are in the "Plot" or "Synopsis" sections.
If you want consensus, look beyond this talk page to what we actually do. There are several thousand articles in Category:Disambiguation, for example, and where they link to Wiktionary, the link to Wiktionary goes in the introduction.
If you want reason, consider the evils of "box stacking". How, exactly, are you helping the readers by stacking lots of boxes all of the way down in the bottom left hand corner of the article, instead of placing the links next to the actual parts of articles where they are relevant? We don't stack images all in one place, but put them next to the part of the article that they are relevant to; we don't do this for interwiki links to sibling projects, either.
Also: Consider the difference between an external link and an interwiki link. Interwiki links are not external links. Uncle G 13:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]