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.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
{{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)
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)
Currently most links to other Wiki 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 Wiki talk:Secure server#Sister project links for more on this and to discuss it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just FYI, Wiktionary has said that it's SISTER is deletable. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hello, what about Wikivoyage and later Wikidata? Ziko (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Done
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)
Besides that this page is distinctly out-of-sync with WP:LAYOUT, the issue of even greater concern is the text
Wiki 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)
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)
We embed images from Wiki: Wiki 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 Wiki 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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest to this page at Wiki 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 Wiki Projects in Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
"Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also."
Please see WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects#Section merge proposed, for a merge proposal:
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
Template:Wikispecies redirect has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may participate at the template's entry at templates for discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wiki talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
A proposal to add to this guideline has been made at the Village Pump: Wiki: Village pump (proposals)#Restrict Wikinews links in articles. --LukeSurl t c 08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Wiki: Wiki sister projects has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.237.76.138 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done No content --DannyS712 (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Wiki: Wiki sister projects has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
51.39.40.51 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Myanmar
Mgnyiny (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Pls see Wiki: Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#Template:Subject bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
Wiki: Wiki sister projects → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking/Wiki 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:
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)
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.
The box template goes in the last section. This is so that the CSS floating works properly. This is usually the ELs section.
There can be issues with image stacking on the right (see page links above)
|position=left
and put it at the end of the section instead of the beginning.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently the incidence is:
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]]
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...
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)
Couldn't Wiki 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)
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)
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)
Please join the discussiopn in Wiki talk:Wiki Commons. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Wiki projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. -- 64.229.90.199 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
History of ai 14.139.120.130 (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 2, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.