Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pi zero (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 22 July 2019 (→Name sounds inappropriate and funny). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis redirect falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
Note icon
This redirect falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Can we please get this sorted out. Stop duplicating two supposedly normative sections which don't even agree. And at the very least, make it clear which one has priority. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this has kicked off. Do we use:

vs

The wording has always been unclear. We need to fix this. Should we do it sensibly, or simply reword it to make the current "assumed" version clearer? How about, "If there is an external link, then link to Commons using the box template. If there are no external links, then change the whole format of the Commons link to something unfamiliar?? This is ridiculous, but a favourite of wikilawyers. It's an inconsistent mess for readers.

Or should we do something sensible:

We use (by default) a box template for Commons. We may use an inlined template instead, if a stack of boxes would be excessive.

  • We should not change the format for linking to Commons just because of other unrelated aspects (such as how many ELs there are).

The box template goes in the last section. This is so that the CSS floating works properly. This is usually the ELs section.

  • If there is no EL section, we should not create an empty one, just for the Commons link.
  • If there is no EL section, move the Commons box up into whatever is now the last section

There can be issues with image stacking on the right (see page links above)

  • If the Commons box would be at the foot of a large image stack on the right, use |position=left and put it at the end of the section instead of the beginning.

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name sounds inappropriate and funny

Couldn't Wikimedia sister projects be changed to simply partner projects or associate projects? Use of the word "sister" would seem to violate Wikipedia's own policies on gender neutrality. Personally, I feel the current name is a bit cringe-inducing and may demonstrate a systemic bias on Wikipedia towards clamping down on all gendered words that refer to males, while rather inconsistently leaving those gendered words that refer to females alone (ie, daughter cells, etc). Let's try to be more consistent here; a name change is in order.Alialiac (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partner and associate don't sound as close. If you must disengender the terms, the least bad genderless choice would be sibling. Changing it seems likely to do damage, on balance, though. The existing term sister has the weight of many years of good will behind it, which a change would not only kill the momentum of but would feel like somewhat repudiating. It is, in honesty, not clear what direction of bias —if any— might be caused by the existing term; one suspects the change, however, would create an appearance of bias we don't want. --Pi zero (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_sister_projects&oldid=907443896"