Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Placement redux

I think that our advice about placement of sister links needs to distinguish between inline links (e.g., to Wiktionary and sometimes Wikisource), which no one much minds anywhere (assuming the page is worth linking at all), and scattering graphical templates throughout the article, which irritates most, if not all, of the editors that contributed to the last unresolved dispute over this. {{wikicommons}}-type links should be left under ==External links==.

IMO, the only time that the graphical templates belong at the top of a page in the mainspace is when they're on disambiguation pages. Shall we expand this section to differentiate between inline and graphical links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With Wikicommons what about images? --PBS (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree. For example if a redirect redirects to a specific section of another article it may be appropriate to put the template into that section. Also there are times when the best place a {{wikisource}} to put it next to the TOC, it fills the white space and if the article is about the source held on wikisource it is a sensible place to put it as it informs the reader that the source exists before have read the whole article. --PBS (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insert your comments into the middle of mine; it's confusing for readers.

I don't think that anyone would recommend putting "click here to see a bunch of pictures on a different website" at the beginning or in the middle of an article instead of at the end. Consider an article about an animal: links at the end are just fine. The best images should already be placed in the article itself.

Your examples about graphical links to wikisource are irrelevant. My statement is about at the top of a page, not in the middle of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Placing an indented comment between paragraphs has been the standard way that usenet groups have been edited for 25 years or more, there is nothing confusing about it, and it allows different threads to develop without the need to quote other authors at the end of each posting (which quickly becomes cumbersome). I do not see how it can be considered confusing here, if in is not considered confusing on usenet.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am referring to the common practice of placing images from wikicommons throughout the text. However there are times when it is useful to place a {{wikisource}} next to the TOC. --PBS (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You said: "... scattering graphical templates throughout the article, which irritates most, if not all, of the editors that contributed to the last unresolved dispute over this."

1) Which discussion? ((cite!)) Links help people who are coming to a discussion fresh (or have poor memories).

2) You define the scope initially as "graphical templates throughout the article", but then later state you only meant "at the top". Hence the confusion.

IIRC, there is recent and historical support for Wikisource and Wikinews graphical box links beside relevant sections within articles. Linking to Wiktionary from an etymology section is also logical. Linking to Commons from a gallery section might also be logical.

I do agree that sister-project-box links are rarely warranted at the very top of an article (except disambig pages). Are there many instances of this?

Specific examples would help all aspects of this discussion. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing (although I also dislike wikisource and wiktionary links in articles, as they aren't reliable sources, and are often not good quality). Everything else (except images) belongs in External links, for all the reasons well covered in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They can be just as well sourced as wikipedia articles. One of the reasons for Wikiquote and Wikisource was to move such information out of Wikipedia. Both wiki quotes and wiki source can be as well cited as similar quotes on Wikipedia, and if not you are free to go to those sites and fix the text and citations, just as you are on this project. The logic of what you are saying would exclude all shared images on wikicommons as well because they they too are also not part of Wikipedia. I am not sure why you seem to think that "all the reasons well covered in archives" covers it. What do you consider to be "good reasons" covered in the archives? --PBS (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity see GCIII for an example of a {{wikisource}} next to the TOC, something which is useful for a reader when reading articles on treaties -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Secure server

Currently most links to other Wikimedia projects (like Wiktionary) point to the normal servers, even when the user is using the secure server. I am now updating the links in the MediaWiki interface and in other places such as the Main Page and the sister project templates. I make it so users on the secure server see secure links, while users on the normal servers see normal links.

This means I am editing many high-visibility places, and that I am doing a site wide change, so I am announcing this in case anyone has any comments about it. See Wikipedia talk:Secure server#Sister project links for more on this and to discuss it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking to sister projects in nav templates

I've reverted Moxy's recent change on where to place links, not because I disagree (or agree for that matter) with the change, but because one of our fundamental Tao-of-editing principles is that you don't change policy or guideline pages when you're in the midst of a discussion on whether policy/guideline supports your side of the argument. {See here for depressing details)

This page seems to generally require "adorned" links, but then also approves in-line unadorned links to Wiktionary, so I'm a little confused. To me, the underlying cnosideration for a plain blue-link is that it will not unexpectedly deliver the reader to a different website. In a way, this is even more important for a sister site, I've many times more than once used the search box on a sister project and wondered who changed all the content.

So comments please, are sister-project links permissible or impermissible in navigation templates; and if permissible, should they be adorned somehow to alert the reader that they navigate to a non-en:wp site; and if so, how? Franamax (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to reflect the guideline Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID #18 that says "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates" and WP:NAVBOX that says " containing links to a group of related articles". Although sister projects are related to Wikipedia they are external in nature, nor are they article related in some cases. Navigation templates provide navigation within each Wikipedia not to sister links or other external sites. That said a section that announces they are external in nature sounds reasonable to me because our readers need to know they are leaving english Wikipedia. I am more then willing to talk about it see what others think about the change I made.Moxy (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's gotta be a better way

Templates like {{Wikisource}} and {{Commons}} are ugly, poorly placed (since we always put them down at the bottom), don't do justice to our sister projects. On Commons athis style of sister template has been largely deprecated in favor of Commons:Template:Sisterwikipedia and related templates, such as at Commons:Category:CommonsRoot. On Wikisource they have been deprecated entirely in favor of s:Template:plain sister such as on s:Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Does anyone have any thoughts on a way that we too could link major sister project links near the top of the page in a clean way?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the age of this thread but have suggested some relate changes at the layout MOS guideline. The aim being that if a wiki source work is the subject of an article then a clean inline link should be provided below the plot section heading, the same should apply for any wikipedia article section summarising a wikibook or summarising a wiktionary entry - this was in response to a request to tidy up some articles where the Wikisource box at the bottom was ugly and did need replaced with something better and something more natural than a link at the top or off to one side. All comments on my proposal are welcomed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary's wikt:WT:SISTER

Just FYI, Wiktionary has said that it's SISTER is deletable. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The link in your title is broken, but wikt:Wiktionary:Sister projects is indeed being RfD'd. (it took me a while to find!)

At a glance, it looks like they're cleaning up old/abandoned documentation pages. They do have a very minimal set up of help pages and project pages compared to Wikipedia (and if that is all they require, then good for them!). Spring cleanings can be good.

If there's a specific problem, such as relevant information being made inaccessible, then let them know in the RfD thread, or tell us exactly what the problem is. –Quiddity (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the only place they list the transwiki templates, and interlink templates. There is no other page on wiktionary that lists that. (as can be seen by checking the whatlinkshere on the various templates). -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the RFD thread is 18 months old, but I've commented there anyways, giving summary&suggestions. Hopefully that covers all of your/our concerns. –Quiddity (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

see also vs external links

hi;

how exactly was it decided (& by whom) that wmf sister projects "should" be placed in external links, instead of under see also?

they're not "external"; those projects are part of wikimedia & run by US. we curate them, they're open source/free, & the material is co-ordinated with what's on wp.

AND this instruction doesn't even anticipate the need to provide in-line links in sections of an article.

to put it another way: i think that it was the wrong choice to begin with, & it's also out-of-date/been-superseded in the evolution of the wikis.

any opinions on changing or dropping it?

Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussions mostly happened at the talk page for MOS:APPENDIX. The sister projects are external in the sense that they are outside the English Wikipedia. A person who (perhaps unwittingly) goes to a sister project is in a different place, and may be surprised by it. For example, the user will get different results via search at each project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and Wikidata

Hello, what about Wikivoyage and later Wikidata? Ziko (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What about them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They weren't included in Template:Wikipedia's sister projects (which this page just transcludes) until January 15, 2013. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Disputed

This page is in disagreement with the longstanding text at WP:LAYOUT and WP:EL. Sister links, like all Wikis, contain content that we often wouldn't even accept in External links because of the nature of Wikis (non-reliable and often inaccurate). Many of them contain info that, if reviewed, would be excluded under any other circumstance from even being listed in External links, so elevating them to the level of including non-reliable external jumps within the text is at odds with all of our other policies on what we include within text versus what we include in appendices. Often, text that is removed or excluded from Wiki articles because it is spam, based on a COI, or unreliable simply moves on to a sister project, where it is accepted without question. (See the Stuttering FAR for a classic example of advertising spam from a COI editor simply moved to Wikibooks; there is no reason to include a link to Wikibooks text in the Stuttering article that would not be accepted in any external link or in our article content.) I vigorously reject inclusion within our articles of external jumps to non-reliable sources (which Wikis are), by allowing the placement of non-reliable external jumps within the text of our articles. They belong in External links, where the LAYOUT guideline has always placed them, if there; when they are reviewed and deemed to be unreliable and inaccurate, they shouldn't even be there. I suggest this page should be synced with WP:LAYOUT and with our other guideline pages governing External links and what we accept within articles (rather than the reverse, which was attempted yesterday and I reverted today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the concern expressed here; though I am not familiar with many of the sister projects, I was involved in the Stuttering FAR which SandyGeorgia refers to above. The Wikibooks article on Stuttering was written mainly by a COI interest editor and contains much unreliable and incorrect information. Despite my efforts to alert the project to the problem,[1] the book remains a "featured book" [2] even though it has been emblazoned with a neutrality concern tag for more than 9 months. Do we really want to encourage links to such misleading material? We wouldn't do it with external links. Surely something needs to be added to the guideline that the material in the sister project needs to be evaluated by an editor before inclusion? Encouraging the links to be in the lead strikes me as inappropriate given the unreliable (and ever changing) nature of a wiki. --Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So do I. This is the slippery slope to lower standards of verification and of the use of non-free content on WP. I might just as well provide external links in WP articles to YouTube content that I know is in breach of copyright; YouTube is heaving with it. We have different standards here. Wikiquote has long been a concern to me in this respect: I can't see how much of the content could possibly not be in breach of copyright. Tony (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides that this page is distinctly out-of-sync with WP:LAYOUT, the issue of even greater concern is the text

Wikipedia encourages links to sister projects and interlanguage links when possible.

is at odds with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL. Many sister links contain inaccurate, unreliable, COI, advert and POV text which was removed from en.wiki; it is against several other policies and guidelines to include that sort of content anywhere in articles, much less within the body/text of articles as external jumps. We should not be violating core principles to include links to information we would reject under any other circumstances; we shouldn't be lowering standards to include external jumps to non-reliable info within articles, even if we at times accept them in external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; my skin crawls at the "where possible". This, to start with, should be toned down given the dangers to some of WP's pillars in too close a relationship to these so-called "sister" projects. BTW, I hate the use of the gendered word "sister" here; "sibling" is the right word nowadays. I propose that it be changed. Tony (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking, but do any of you actually have first-hand working knowledge of these projects? Do you have a lot of experience working with the editors there? Are you deeply familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikiquote, to name one sister project? I do, and that's why I find the above comments a little insulting. I would strongly suggest that before anyone throws the baby out with the bathwater that he or she familiarize themselves with Wikiquote's content guidelines and policies. I see no evidence of "copyright infringement" that is any better or worse than some of the examples that occasionally pop up on Wikipedia. They, too, are dealt with sooner or later by both admins and editors alike. As for this proposal, I think it's a little reactionary, to be perfectly frank. Based on one bad experience, apparently one of you wants to do away completely with linking to the sister projects. Quite surprising. As for the logic, it's inconsistent in my view. By asserting that the sister projects are "unreliable" (and therefore not deserving of an external link), you should equally advocate removing all internal wikilinks on Wikipedia since they, too, run the same risk of unreliably sourced material from time to time. I remain unconvinced by the necessity of this campaign. Regards, J Readings (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the specific example of the Stuttering article; diffs and links were already provided; the problems go beyond that one example, though, when this page contradicts multiple other commonly cited guideline pages, and even raise questions about WP:V policy when we link prominently to information that is known to be inaccurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is additionally at distinct odds with WP:LAYOUT and common practice wrt otherwise, they are usually placed in either "See also" section or External links section; external content has never been placed in See also at LAYOUT, which prioritizes internal content over external content. External jumps don't belong in See also, which is a collection of internal links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of our personal views on the quality of projects such as Wikiquote and Wikibooks, I do not believe the status of Wikipedia's sister projects is up for editorial discussion right now. This is doubly true when you invoke legal arguments, as the Foundation has repeatedly stated that attempts by Wikipedia editors to steal the foundation lawyer's job are not appreciated.

I do, however, believe that the existing version of the Guidelines section was horribly confusing, so I have boldly rewritten it for clarity and relevance.(diff)

Significant changes include the clarification of the layout issue described by SandyGeorgia above, the rephrasing of the initial paragraph in the section from "Wikipedia encourages links to sister projects and interlanguage links when possible. However, links to sister projects should not be inserted excessively." to "Wikipedia encourages links to high-quality pages on sister projects, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia wherever possible.", and the replacement of the previous grammatically-broken usage examples with a description of examples of productive interproject linking.

Hopefully these changes should address the majority of your problems with the guideline. --erachima talk 06:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite was helpful, but the core issues regarding the placement of external jumps in external links remain, as well as the strange placement in See also. While the page is now clearer and has some qualifying statements, the following statements are still at odds with common practice and several other guideline pages:

1) Links to Wikimedia sister projects are best placed in the section of the article to which they relate, including the lead section, if necessary. (At odds with long-standing text at WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT, also raises 1b concerns wrt WP:WIAFA if applied as described. Also raises WP:V and WP:RS issues.

2) Depending on the article, this will place them in either the "see also" section or external links. I am not aware of any guideline page or common practice that would place external jumps within See also, which is a collection of internal links.

3) Examples of helpful sister project links would be a link to Wikiquote placed in a biography article alongside any discussion of famous quotations by the individual, or a link to Wikinews placed at the head of an article about an ongoing news event. (see No. 1 above)

That's without looking at the remainder of the page. I look forward to a discussion of more specifics, without wording like "invoke legal arguments" or statements like "Wikipedia's sister projects is up for editorial discussion right now". I hope we can get down to the serious work of examining these concerns in detail, as this page is currently at odds with many other pages and doesn't reflect common practice. There is a place for links deemed to be reliable in Wiki articles, according to all of our other policies and guidelines, but I hope we can agree that we don't want to diminish the quality of any article by linking to information that is known to be unreliable, unsourced or even inaccurate; theoretically, no one here would encourage links to such external jumps within our articles, even if we do agree that they are an exception that is allowed in Exernal links only because they are part of the broader umbrella, and even if they often contain content we would otherwise reject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see two places that suggest putting an external-links template under "internal" links. This is a bad idea.

WP:LAYOUT does not recognize any standard appendix named "Internal links." It does not accept external links in "See also".

This text should be revised to specify that these templates belong under "External links" -- and perhaps also to note that they must comply with all of the usual WP:EL rules, including making sure that the linked page actually has some justifiable value, instead of assuming that all existing pages at all sister projects are always appropriate links for all encyclopedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page, because she can't bear to have another disputed guideline in her watchlist this month)

The guideline is not in conflict with WP:EL because that guideline specifically stated it does not apply to sister project links. It certainly seems to be in conflict with current practice since this guideline states Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to high-quality pages on sister projects where useful (my emphasis) where as current practice seems to accept links to sister projects regardless of quality. I prefer the standard covered here but I think it needs wider input or possibly just greater visibility to actually modify editor behavior on this. -- SiobhanHansa 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"High quality" was added yesterday;[3] it's subjective and not particularly helpful unless linked to or viewed in the context of our other policies and guidelines (such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL). And without giving numerous examples, at both WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT, we never knowingly link to sites that violate copyright. The exemption at WP:EL for sibling projects was added by one user on May 14, 2008[4] with negligible discussion or consensus on talk and over some disagreement,[5] so this needs to be addressed as well (typical of how MoS pages evolve with little coordination with other pages that are contradicted.) Under Links normally to be avoided at WP:EL, elements of this page are in disagreement with points 1, 2, 5 and 12 at least. Why we would exempt Sibling projects raised interesting questions and they should be addressed; this affects the integrity of our articles. WP:EL is a guideline; much more significant is how these siblings impact WP:V policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't relalise that was a recent addition. I think the intent is a good one. And I see your point about it needing context.

The "does not apply to sister projects" text in the external links guideline was not disagreed with. The disagreement was for general wikimedia links and the text was altered to only mean sister projects. I raised concerns that sister links should not be given carte blanche but was satisfied by the posters acknowledgment that there was a guideline here to cover them. Also the conversation had about as many people providing input as this one currently does. -- SiobhanHansa 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But the change to EL lacked oversight because for some reason it was left out of the monthly updates; perhaps Tony knows what happened there. (Your edit summaries could use some improvement in tone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We embed images from Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons in many many articles. Indeed it is impossible to tell from the image link if the image to the right of this paragraph is on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Personally I do not see the difference between that and linking to an appropriate section in wikisource. Eg:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did cover prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp

— BBC Q&A: Guantanamo detentions

To argue that wikisource:Third Geneva Convention#Article 3 should be placed in external links section at the bottom of the page does not help our readers to navigate easily to the link and back to the relevant sentence that uses the link. In situations like this it should be an editorial judgement by the editors of a page (who should know there subject better than most) if the article in a sister project is of appropriate quality to contain a link from a Wikipedia page. This is not something half a dozen wikipidians should dictate from WP:LAYOUT. Tome it seems that the logic that some editors are expressing here is that it does not matter what is linked to in the external links section, (presumably because they think that the three Wikipedia content policies do not apply to that section). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeating, LAYOUT is a widely followed and widely quoted page, and that text has been there for years. This page isn't widely followed, so the place where a few Wikipedians are dictating is here. Sibling projects are not reliable sources (although we have an issue in that Commons serves an entirely different purpose). No guideline page should overrule WP:V or WP:RS to encourage insertion of non-RS into the text, and LAYOUT has very long-standing consensus (more than a few years); sibling templates belong with external links. How to handle Commons images is a separate issue, but I've never yet encountered someone who misunderstood the difference between Commons and other Sibling projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia, you say "sibling templates belong with external links" what about in-links such as the one given above (wikisource:Third Geneva Convention#Article 3 ) or to a word in Wiktionary? By what objective criteria are you judging that other projects are less reliable than Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the logic or benefit in repeating this conversation on two pages: my responses are at WT:LAYOUT, the more widely followed and widely cited guideline page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue is still being actively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Links to sister projects. I suggest that those interested in the subject who have read or contributed to this conversation take a gander at Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Links to sister projects. So that we can reach a consensus so that the wording in the section "#Links to sister projects" of the guideline Layout and the section "Guidelines" on this project page are in harmony. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently tried to add a link to a low-quality Wikiversity article [6] to the Cold Fusion page; I'm wondering if the author of that edit was confused by this "Wikimiedia sister projects" page. Is anyone actually claiming WP:LAYOUT trumps WP:ELNO? If not, I'll add a sentence: "External links to sister projects, like any external link, are governed by Wikipedia's external link policies." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Point of {{Wikidata}}

Copied from Template talk:Wikidata: "What's the point of this template ({{Wikidata}})? Every article with a Wikidata entry has automatically an entry in its 'tools' section called 'Data item'." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this template is basically pointless as every article already has a link to this page. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

New template for articles about Wikidata properties

I have created {{Wikidata property}} (example above), for articles about subjects for which we have a property in Wikidata. Please help to improve and apply it (can anyone generate a list of relevant articles?), and to migrate it to other-language Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: How is this template "... such links are likely to be useful to our readers"? -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The "(see uses)" link helps them to find other instances, even when we do not have articles about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Please complete documentation, and mention this one in the sisterproject lists (had to search for this one).

2. Is there a reason why only "property" is provided? Other wikidata entries like "item" do not qualify? -DePiep (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A related discussion took place at Template talk:Sister project links#Wikinews default in which the idea to unhide Wikinews (hidden by default) in the Sister project links template was proposed. I bring the discussion to this project page, the content of which governs use of the template. So for the purpose of this Request for Comment, the question is "Should Wikinews be a default, unhidden link in this template?" Please include your !votes and rationales below. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes:

Support unhiding Wikinews

• Support as nom – Wikinews has come a long way and often links to Wikipedia from its portal and category pages, so it is high time to make Wikinews unhidden by default in the Sister project links template. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Encouraging links to sister projects can only be beneficial --CSJJ104 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Also support -- My philosophy is that more information is better than less, you give people options and let them decide what is relevant. Excluding options from being presented means less opportunity to broaden one's vistas. Damotclese (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No:

Wikinews should remain hidden by default

•    FDMS  4   : There are some articles on Wikinews that are relevant enough for Wikipedia articles to link to them. However, in most cases, category pages offer nothing more than a random selection of sometimes very old news articles related to the Wikipedia article's subject. In my opinion, it would (only) make sense to have a link to full related news coverage on (almost) every article, but this is something Wikinews is never going to be able to offer. 12:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Per FDMS and my comment below. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion:

• (via Feedback Request Service) Wikinews differs from the other projects in that the stories contained therein are not updated to reflect new information. Closely related is the fact that it is not a reference work. Rather, it is a collection of uncurated historical snapshots underneath the thin bark of articles that have additional value because their content is still either reasonably up to date, or an accurate and comprehensive record of an event (within the bounds of notability). For many Wikipedia articles, the back catalogue of Wikinews articles will not yet be of value as a historical document, as it does not reach back far enough. The modus operandi of Wikinews means that it has a long-term patchiness that can never retrospectively be fixed. Those would be my main concerns w.r.t. listing it, by default, as an equal alongside all the other projects. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"Uncurated" is, on the face of it, false. --Pi zero (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand how Wikinews "is not a reference work". Of course it's a reference work! Readers should have the choice to click on any link available to them to get any information they want and perhaps need for whatever their purpose. And that includes the news, both old and new, about the subject they are reading on this encyclopedia. Back when Wikipedia was unavailable, my work entailed use of several physical encyclopedias. When I read something pertinent to my writing that I needed to know more about, it meant I had to dig and dig and dig for the information, whether it was mags or newspaper records, whatever. That is one area in which Wikipedia really shines! Links on Wikipedia, "wikilinks" if you will, often mean that someone else has already done the digging. So the work can go much faster. Instead of pulling out another physical volume, or heading to the public library or other available "footwork" sources of old, one just clicks a link to find more info that may be pertinent to one's investigation and study. The designers who felt that some links should be subdued had good hearts, I'm sure; however, that does not excuse the fact that a link to Wikinews in all articles that use the sister-projects template is presently not available as a choice for readers – and it should be. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

Only unhide if the news item is less than 28 days old S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Why compromise? If one is writing, say, an essay for college, or a journalism article or even a novel, isn't "old news" just as important as "recent news"? And that old news, which may be crucial to an investigation or study, is often not included in a Wikipedia article or, if included, is only "lightly covered". When it comes to studying a subject for whatever reason, sometimes "old news is good news" really does apply. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed 28-day window would give curators/editors time to incorporate the news into the article if it meets inclusion criteria for all time. If it fails so to do then it will only clutter investigators' efforts. Having once been a professional investigator I appreciate your point but don't think that an encyclopaedia is the right location for this. S a g a C i t y (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. My research was for my writing, and in that type of investigation every single type of clutter is significant. So what I must cede is that not everyone is a writer, so not everyone would share by belief that even "clutter" may be significant. Having said that, let me also say that you make a good argument. Your user name is well-deserved! And just because I only very rarely give out compliments like this, don't let it go to your head. – Paine  00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion for interwiki links

Physics equations

w:electrostatics
v:Vectors
b:vectors
w:Vector
w:Coulomb's law v:Coulomb's Law*
v:Vector calculus*
v:Coordinate systems*
wikt:vector

  *-uses calculus

I propose that interwiki links be collected together and put under one image as a sidebar. What goes into the links will be, of course, at the discretion of the editors of each article. The present system requires a separate icon for each sister (Wikiversity, Wiktionary, ect.). This wastes space and also precludes multiple links to parallel or multiple articles on any given wiki-sister. Shown to the right is a hastily written prototype that I currently use to link physics resources related to my project on Wikiversity.

The proposed template would encourage authors to write on wikis, and this would help Wikipedia evolve from the world's greatest encyclopedia to the world's greatest bookstore where everything is free, open-source, and editable.--guyvan52 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. This will encourage readers to move across different WMF wikis more freely. It will be more beneficial to the other wikis than to Wikipedia itself. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC on "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?"

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest to this page at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes.3F. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Location for links to sister projects

While the default position is for links and link templates to be in the "External links" section, would it not be more appropriate in some cases to have them in relevant sections; surely, for instance, a "Quotations" section would be an appropriate place for a Wikiquote link template, "Gallery" for a Commons template, or "Etymology" or "Definition" for a Wiktionary template? In the more-developed articles (which are either more likely to be getting traffic, or where we'd like the higher-traffic articles to be), it may not be immediately obvious for the general reader that the templates would be in the "External links" section, especially if there's an extensive reference list, or other lengthy sections, in-between the respective section and the external links. I made the same mistake on Andrei Sakharov in a lapse of memory, but when I realised and went to remove it, it gave me pause for thought.

Is this something that others would support an RFC on? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it is more appropriate in some cases to have them in a different place. The text currently reads

"Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also." 

This language gives editors the discretion of doing things differently. I have violated this "general" rule on at least two occasions, as in Casimir_effect#Derivation_of_Casimir_effect_assuming_zeta-regularization where I linked to Wikiversity:Quantum mechanics/Casimir effect in one dimension at the beginning of the section. One of the editors publicly "thanked" for that edit. I have even used the pure inline link at , Liouville's theorem (Hamiltonian), where I wrote in the lede, "A proof of Liouville's theorem uses the ..."

My concern is that changing the language will encourage misguided attempts to link in this way. Wikiversity permits students to post original research and opinions. Perhaps I am being overly conservative here, by my initial reaction to your idea is, "if it's not broken, don't fix it". I will leave you with two questions:

1. Are you aware of any instances where a valid request to violate the "general" rule with a sister link was denied?
2. Can you think of language that more clearly states that exceptions are permitted without giving Wikiversity students the impression that they are free to use this device?

Not saying "no" to your suggestion, just not saying "yes". --Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To me, it could simply be pre-agreeing a list here of which of the sister projects can be linked elsewhere in the text, but again allowing the same discretion (so essentially just clarifying or pre-defining sections that are also appropriate for sister project links). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For me the issue is simple, since I don't edit on Wikipedia very much - I let the editors of the page make the decision. If two editors of a page can't agree, this page might be a good place to seek other opinions. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Section merge discussion

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects#Section merge proposed, for a merge proposal:

• Most of WP:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links → WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

missing help

 Invalid

 – The page already provides multiple pointers to the location of this information.

After a long search, I arrived at this helppage. Then, section "How to link" does not mention the option to use a prefix. (like: [[:de:Apollo 11]] = de:Apollo 11 // for wikibooks). -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not the help page you're looking for. That page is, mentioned in the hatnote overleaf, Help:Interwikimedia links, or, mentioned on the latter page, Help:Interlanguage links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am at the right Help page. But the Help fails. Read my point again. This Help is supposed to help me. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt for this page to have a "See also" pointer to those place, but we do not need to (and usually have multiple reasons not to) rehash the same material in detail on multiple pages (the most obvious of these is gradual content-forking of the advice).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; they're both already in the see-also section, too. Given that this page twice tells you where to find this information, there is no action item here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia + Wikiquote

I'm a little nervous my work will be undone so forgive my abstraction, but I thought it might be potentially valuable. On an article about a living person who is known for using catch phrases and famous quotes there is a short list. I've started adding citations for when they used those famous quotes, as well as credit to the famous name with Wikipedia link, and then after the linked name another reference to the Wikiquote page of that famous name. Something like so:

• "Fool me once..."(ref YouTube.com/speech /ref) ~ ((George Bush))(ref Wikiquote.com/George Bush /ref)

I hope you can understand what I mean, and that this format is reasonable, and perhaps either as is or better modified it might be worthy to include in the style guide. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikispecies redirect

Template:Wikispecies redirect has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may participate at the template's entry at templates for discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Linking non-notable subjects to their WikiData entries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe SMcCandlish was referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 202#RfC: Linking to wikidata. See also the currently active revised RFC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata. Daask (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal at Viilage Pump

A proposal to add to this guideline has been made at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict Wikinews links in articles. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018

103.237.76.138 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No content --DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

51.39.40.51 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Altamel (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Myanmar

Mgnyiny (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Links not seen in mobile view

Pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#‎Template:Subject bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed locations at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking/Wikimedia sister projects – Consistency with all the other style pages. We consolidated them into the MoS for a reason. This is Option A. Two other possibilities:

Option B: Move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Wikimedia sister projects. This would be shorter but less precise, and would also not be consistent with our treatment of, e.g., the sub-pages of WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility (WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Signatures, WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial)

Option C: Merge to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Interwiki links, which weirdly doesn't even mention this page (it is rather hard to know this page exists, which may be one reason people aren't always following it). The material is short enough to merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• The more I think about this, the more I favor Option C as first choice, Option A as second. It's just damned strange that link-style-and-layout material on interwiki linking isn't all in the same place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Styling and linking is just one part of this page. Those sections already have {{See also}} links and summary-style descriptions. Change the templates to {{Main}} if you want and document the "official" handling on those MOS pages, but leave this page in its current name as a nexus for all these several bits of information related to sister projects. -- Netoholic @ 17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The page contains sections which are not about "MOS" or linking per se. The current name works fine and I don't see any reason to unnecessarily move this to any subpage level. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic and Ammarpad above. There are a number of style issues about Wikimedia sister projects covered in the MoS (e.g. Manual of Style/Layout§Links to sister projects), but the purpose of the page is to inform about what the Wikimedia sister projects are and how they relate to Wikipedia. Formatting of links is only one facet of this, so such a move would either lose information or end up presenting information that is not relevant in an MoS article. I agree with option C insofar as there is material on this page that may be better presented on the relevant MoS layout page (right now, the "sister projects" section is buried in the external links subsection), but this page still fulfils functions outside the scope of an MoS page. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per everyone above - The page isn't about MOS per se - I see no valid reason as to why this should be moved. –Davey2010^Talk 13:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Duplication with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects

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)

The perennial empty links section / Commons box

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

• (Commons box, on the left to avoid stacking)

vs

• (Commons inlined, sitting alone in an empty section)

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)

Where to place links

Currently the incidence is:

Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).

This was something I fought for long and hard in the first few years of this encyclopaedia, however I recently came across 25 articles that I altered with an AWB script (between 08:55 and 09:52, 24 March 2021). They contained the following construction:

[[s:A Naval Biographical Dictionary/name of a biography|local name]]

eg: Henry Gordon Veitch

With the exception of the Noël Coward (diff) and Giles E. Strangways (diff) articles were usually (unsurprisingly) naval articles like French brig Palinure (1804).

The intention of this particular exception to the rule in the guidance of no external links in text of an article was because linking to an unfamiliar word or the text of a primary source on Wikisource can be useful and such text is banned in Wikipedia articles. However I think linking to a biography of a person on Wikisource is not a good idea because either the person is notable in which case there should be a red link to a Wikipedia article, or there should be no link at all. With the AWB script, I deleted the link and then added it as a footnote like this: ...Henry Gordon Veitch...

References

So I would suggest that the guidance is modified (probably with a footnote) to mention that linking to Wikisource secondary and tertiary sources in the text of Wikipedia articles should be avoid. Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that until we have serious disputes about this, we should probably not bother making a rule about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would oppose this on other grounds, too. The same camp who make objections like this also object to male-gendered terminology like brotherhood, mankind, and so on, and can't have it both ways. Nothing negative is implied by sister in this context, so it is in no way problematic. It's the same usage as sister cities, and comparable to mother of pearl and similar metaphors. English works as it works, and no amount of fantasizing about it magically changing into some new language utterly devoid of gender/sex-related terms is going to make idioms like this use of sister either go away or be deemed wrongful. I'm seriously starting to think we need a new WP:NOT#CONLANG: "Wikipedia is not a place for experimenting with language construction and language-change advocacy". A tremendous amount of overly-emotive and tendentious bickering has been in this vein, and it's gotten markedly worse in the last three years or so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too concerned either way, but I did find sister a bit odd at first and brother would seem equally a bit odd to me. Maybe project cousin or another project in the Wikifamily? Facts707 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Location of Expand Language templates within articles - Proposed amendments to wording of WP:MOSSIS

For information, there is a discussion at Templates for discussion about the placing of the Template:Expand language within articles, and a proposal to amend the wording of this Style Guideline to make it explicit that WP:MOSSIS should include such links to non-English language wikipedias. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Hallucegenia (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Usage of template commonscat

Please join the discussiopn in Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Commons. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

{{Wikimedia projects}}

FYI, Template:Wikimedia projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ai intelligence

History of ai 14.139.120.130 (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)