Template talk:Sister project links

Test edits

See Template talk:Sisterlinks -- Mdd (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Testing

This template is tested in the article Art, see here and it seems to work. -- Mdd (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikiquote:Village pump#Template:Sister project links -- Mdd (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Second test in categories

As a (second test) the template is added in the Category:Art, and here (just for fun). Both seem to work. I guess we could just be bold and start using this template (in a day or so). -- Mdd (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed in the Category:Art, that the template does need it parameters (see here) to link to sister categories. -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed the template has an other appearance here on Wikiquote as on Wikipedia, see for example here at category:plants. Now this can be (temporary) resolved by adding a {{clear}} tag, see for example here -- Mdd (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Similarlinks

I just now noticed there is a similar Template:Similarlinks present in about 69 articles. -- Mdd (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Today I noticed both templates have the same source, the Template:Sister project links in 2007 and in 2013. This means we have a duplicate here, and one is redundant. It seems smart (in time) to remove one. -- Mdd (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Usage

This appears to work well enough, and can be useful for bundling sister project links if there are more than two or three appropriate ones. However, I am a little concerned about the potential for introducing excessive links that are not particularly germane.

The template has an "opt-out" to suppress unwanted links, but I would prefer to see an "opt-in" where the contributor has determined the link is relevant. I think that a significant proportion of the links introduced in pages where the template has been used (none of which actually uses the opt-out feature) are not particularly relevant or useful additions to those pages. I can envision careless use of this template resulting in large quantities of links having no relevance whatsoever. (The similar template {{Similarlinks}} does not even have an opt-out for omitting links that are known not to be useful.)

Also, I am not a big fan of linking to search results pages. (See WP:LINKSTOAVOID #9, to be considered in the context of WP:ELMAYBE #5.) I think there is a world of difference between saying "there is a page about this here", and saying "you can search for something about it there". (Maybe that's just because I already know how to use a search engine.)

Adding links to appropriate sister project pages is a good thing but, when considering relevance and usefulness, sometimes less is more. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree an "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" layout would be better for this template, where it is used. I personally don't see much use for such links beyond those to Wikipedia, the Wiktionary, the Commons, and occasionally Wikisource. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC) & tweaks

I do share Ningauble concern for potentially introducing excessive linkage. And for that, I think, the use of this template should even be limited to situations where there are at least three or four appropriate ones. I guess this leaves us with the question, when to consider a link appropriate?

Here I question Ningauble's saying: the links introduced in pages where the template has been used'... are not particularly relevant or useful additions to those pages. We are talking about five pages:

• Art : The template replaced six separate templates, see previous state
• Category:Art : Similar, see previous state
• Software engineering : 5 of the 7 links are to actual pages on the sister projects
• Photography : also 5 of the 7 links to actual pages on the sister projects
• Electrical engineering : about 4 to 5 of the links to actual pages on the sister projects

Even the search results of Wikinews and Wikisource often give some remarkable links. How can this not be particularly relevant or useful?

As to the "opt-in"/"opt-out" options. It is not within my ability to rewrite this template as "opt-out" version. To keep it simple, we should just follow the updates of the English Wikipedia. However, it is within our ability to agree upon excluding certain links, as described here in the documentation. -- Mdd (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)/ 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC) / 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue you mentioned above is important, I think. Taking the pages that you listed as examples, and even assuming that all the "Sister project links" are relevant and constitute "useful additions" to the articles, one still notes that Wikinews has no pages for "Art", "Software engineering", "Photography" nor "Electrical engineering", and that the latter three also don't have a page at Wikisource (as you know). I think this could be a problem. Ideally, pages that don't exist shouldn't appear in the list, right? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking into this some more, there seems to be a lot more to it. For example

• An "Opt-out" version can be "manually" be realized like this
• Wikidata, Wikispecies and Wikivoyage are already being "opted-out" (and on Wikipedia this is going to change for Wikivoyage) see also this discussion on Wikipedia.
• Also Wikiquote offers inline sisterlinks, see for example in use here, and the documentation Template:Wikispecies-inline
• Other sister projects use different methods to link to sisterprojects, for example
  1. In Wikisource there is a plain template, see for example in use here, and the documentation here
  2. In Wikinews in categories they is a short listing on the right top, see for example here
  3. In Wiktionairy they still use separate templates in articles, see here, and in categories, see for example here

In general it seems in sister projects to be the standard to link to sister-projects if they are available. -- Mdd (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Opt-in vs Opt-out

While I like the new Wikipedia sister template, I share the concern regarding Opt-out, but also object to the search function usage in it.

I'm redeveloping the template on nl.wikiquote, maintaining the look-and-feel (which I find very attractive), but changing the functionality:

• a sister will only be displayed if it has a parameter {{Sister projects}} without parameters would just show the heading
• a sister parameter can either be "ja" (= "yes") which will then use the page name, or can be a different name. E.g. {{Sister projects|w=ja}} would try to give a link to a Wikipedia page with the same name as the one the template is place on, while {{Sister projects|w=Lord Byron}} would link to the Lord Byron page independent of the page name

I'm probably going to need a few more days to finish up, at which time I'll be happy to share it here, and even translate it back to English. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I think I finished earlier than I expected. Have a look here: [1]. The way it is set up, if a parameter (w, s, commons, etc) is NOT set, the line will not appear. If the parameter is "ja" (= "yes") the line is shown, using the page name, if the parameter is set with something else, it links to that something else at that sister project. Ping my talk page if you have any questions or comments or wanted a translated version to use here. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)