Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects/Archive 1

Original suggestion.
The original discussion from 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:

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.  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  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.  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  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&times;16 images of the logos, which would fit well. (Wikiquote logo doesn't want to be resized to 16px. : [ alerante | &#x201c;&#x201d; 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. L UDRAMAN | 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 " " . 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== 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  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 "  Wonderfalls  "? – Quadell (talk) (help)  13:44, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia centric.
Would this box be in articles? If so I very strongly oppose doing that since it is Wikimedia-centric. See 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 box; thanks to those responsible! &mdash; Matt 10:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Different article names.
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 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 ; 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 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. 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?


 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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  namespace used to look like: . 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)

 * 1) Itai 00:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Phil | Talk 11:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *The  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)
 * 4) **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)

 * 1) 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, 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 Wikisource). The question is basically which way it should be. For reference, see the following diffs:, , , . -- 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 and  (the former being my own, the latter a reversal by Netoholic). After the poll was in place, however, Netoholic merged the contents of Wikisource, Wikiquote and Wiktionary into 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 BTW):  This page is a candidate to be moved to . If the page can be edited into an encyclopedic article, rather than merely a , please do so and remove this message. Otherwise, you can help by formatting it per the guidelines in preparation for the move. which when invoked by  produces:

Related article
I propose a master template like this (snitched from ):  | or alternatively like this: which when invoked by  produces:

The directly-related case can be catered for with judicious use of the  variable: produces:

Comments/discussion
This is a simplified proposal: I actually really like what Netoholic did with 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 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 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. &mdash;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. Go vote! &mdash; 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. -Wikibob | Talk 02:12, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Why are there 2 versions.of this page?
One here and one at Template_messages/Links are they the same or what. Also shouldn't this be a sub article of Template_messages. I was just wondering. --Michael180 17:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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 Main Page etc. -- Eleassar   my talk 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * For this you can use par generally. I.e. 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 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)

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)

WikiTree?!?!?
There is no Template for links to WikiTree and I dont know how to make templates. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.83.100 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-19 02:22:24 UTC

Nevermind, WikiTree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 2005-12-19 21:43:26 UTC
 * I have deleted that template. I nominated it for deletion once, and it was deleted; I am more than a little irritated that it was recreated and put back into articles. Raul654 23:56, 19 December 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)
 * The latter. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So it should be changed back - every single other link is 'sister'. And how on earth can it be construed as sexism...hmm. Stevage 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I always use "sibling", too. I prefer the sex-neutral term.  It seems odd to think of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews et al. as having sexes. Uncle G 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * I agree with Uncle G completely and "Thanks!" -- by PTNFromm 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Help:Link
 * Help:InterWiki linking (WP:INTER)
 * InterWikimedia link (WP:IW)
 * Guide to layout (WP:LAYOUT)
 * Manual of Style (links) (WP:MOS-L, MoS:L) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PTNFromm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The EL section is the appropriate place for sister projects links. I have corrected the Guidelines section as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Recurring Problem at Wikisource from Templates
I have noticed a reccuring problem at Wikisource I believe stems from the use of the sister project template. In a Wikipedia article an editor A uses this template to direct reader to a source text he knows exists, but is not in english. He leaves the Wikipedia article without verifing the link which goes to a page on the English Wikipedia that does not exist. Some time later editor B reads the article follows the link to find the source test is not there. Editor B decides to be helpful and add it since they can easily find it on the web, and now the english wikipedia is constantly having foriegn works add to it. An example of this situation before editor B comes along is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution_on_Taiwan%27s_Future&oldid=17490426|Resolution on Taiwan's Future. I am going to do my best to fix some of these but is there any way to make a template that links an english Wikipedia article to a foriegn Wikisource text. It would be very helpful.--BirgitteSB 17:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind this already exists! If only people would use it.--BirgitteSB 17:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of templates is too small
Please take a look at this image: [[Media:Templates_problems_xmp.png]]. As you can see, the boxes for the sister project links are simply too small. The text wraps inside. It would be a much better idea to increase the size of the boxes a little (say, by 100 pixels) and then turn on wrapping so that people with a larger text size would still be able to read the lines. I guess this would require changing Common.css, but I believe that it's worth it since these are very widely used and important templates. To be specific, I'd personally suggest style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; padding: 4px; width: 250px;">. --Michiel Sikma 08:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Specifying any (mostly) text box in px is less optimal than em, which resizes the box as the user's font selection changes. This is a big help to the hard-of-sight. 20em is about the same size as 250px, and the sister project templates are already that size.
 * You are also free to modify your own stylesheet by adding .infobox.sisterproject { foo: bar; } and adjusting to your preference. -- Netoholic @ 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if there is no problem. 20em is most definitely not the same size as 250px, seen as how when increasing the size to 250px, the problem is solved. Then why not simply use a larger em size, such as 23 or 24? Afterall, the image clearly demonstrates that the currently used class is flawed. Also, you can tell me to use my own stylesheet, but that doesn't really help anybody else, which is what I'm trying to do. --Michiel Sikma 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note right now that this system only works in case of a more narrow screen font such as Arial (the default Windows font in Internet Explorer and Firefox) but does not work when a different font is present, such as Verdana (default sans-serif font in Opera), Helvetica, or Bitstream Vera Sans (standard in some Linux distributions). It's true that the current size works just fine to users of Windows Internet Explorer or Firefox without modified settings, but this template really shouldn't discriminate against those that don't. --Michiel Sikma 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry if I sounded unfriendly back there. It wasn't my intention to. The only point that I'm raising here is although the template itself is fine, it just doesn't seem to have a proper size for slightly more extended fonts. So without edit warring, I hope we can reach a consensus. :) --Michiel Sikma 12:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really have any issue raising the width, but I do want it to be the smallest that is practical. Is the problem you have only with Template:Sisterlinks? -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Template:Sisterlinks is the only one without word wrapping. This is what makes text "disappear" on (most) non-Arial fonts due to the small size of the box. This is technically the only offending template, but it's best to have all pertaining templates be at the same size, of course.
 * I believe that if we assume Verdana as "most extended" screen font (as it's got a larger "punch width" than both Helvetica and Bitstream Vera Sans), width: 23.5em; would be enough to make it work properly. At that point it may also be desired to turn on word wrapping again: at this size the text will be too short to wrap, but in the rare case of a non-compliant browser error misreading this value, it would then still show all the text in the box. --Michiel Sikma 20:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's another case, see the Commons template in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia :-( Who could fix this? Tom 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Q
Can commons boxs be moved to the left? I tried,  Joe I  23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This functionality could be added to the template, but for now, you can use:
 * --Swift 06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Swift 06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

which articles are good for commonscat?
Should every article that has a corresponding, non-empty commons category have a commonscat template on it? I'm seeing a lot of articles that could have one but don't, but I can't tell if that's just because no one has gotten around to it, or if there are criteria I don't know about. --Allen 18:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going ahead and adding commonscat templates to several articles. Let me know if I should stop.  --Allen 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
I clarified that external links should generally be placed in the external links section rather than the see also section when there is not a corresponding section of the article to place them next to. I believe this to be a summary of the current policy rather than a change (most of the templates state flat out that "External links" should be their default; none of them ever mention the "See also" section as a possible location) and yet this is a mistake that I see often on Wikipedia. Perhaps, it is because people don't read this page, perhaps because they only read the first few paragraphs. Hope this helps. If anyone wants to adjust my wording, feel free. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No Wikisourcepar?
Looking for a way to link to 2 or 3 Wikisource articles in one infobox, help? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Type like this;, in the proper section. -- PTNFromm 20:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

All Move to x transwiki templates are now Copy to x
The Move to transwiki templates are now Copy to. This is more accurate, as transwikiing does not move the article at all, merely copies it. See the talk pages for the various transwiki templates, such as Template_talk:Copy_to_Wiktionary. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good! Reasonable! Thanks! -- by PTNFromm 00:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiTree license change
Anyone interested in this edit over at WikiTree? It looks like they switched to GFDL. Is this why they're not considered a sister project? (Sorry if this is old news - I just started investigating...) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sister projects are projects also hosted by the wikimedia foundation not just projects that use the Mediawiki software. As such WikiTree is not a Sister Project. Conrad.Irwin 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a Wiki Sister project?
Shouldn't this page begin with a definition or a link to a page which defines all Wiki(blank) terms? I arrived at this page via a link at [WikiProject] in an attempt to determine the difference between the two terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.9.59.97 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Proposal to remove unfree WMF logos from these templates
Please see: Village pump %28policy%29. Dragons flight 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikia
Should Wikia be added to this page? I'm definitely starting to look at certain non-encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia, as "Copy to Wikia" candidates. Is it worth creating a set of templates to add to Category:Transwiki templates? --Elonka 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

subpages
These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages for main discussion -Eep² 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but...
Can someone please make sure that this page doesn't show up in categories like "Move to Wikibooks" etc. I removed the appropriate category from the bottom, but it's still in the category. That's because the templates are all transcluded. Easy fix: subst them, and update every so often. I don't know how you people like things done, so I won't do it myself. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the way to fix the problem. Leave the templates as is on the project page; on the template pages, put tags around the categories, so upon transclusion, the categories don't come along. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FreeContentMeta
Template:FreeContentMeta, which creates external link boxes similar to those of Wikimedia's sister projects, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jpatokal (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Infinite Parameters To Wiktionarypar Possible?
Is it possible to give infinite paramters to Wiktionarypar?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction sister project
Has a non-wikia fiction related sister project ever been proposed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably, many times, but it always comes back to that wikimedia projects are supposed to be about free knowledge, but fiction is usually not free. That puts quite a damper on it. (I am not saying that your solution is not possible, though, but the collaboration with wikia is the closest way to satisfy excessive in-universe needs in an encyclopedic and wiki manner). – sgeureka t•c 09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge a section on soft redirects to Wiktionary
I'd like to merge Soft redirect (guideline section) here. If editors are looking for a way to fight re-creation of unencyclopedic articles, they will certainly look here for an answer. It is less likely that they will look in Soft redirect, because if they know what is a "soft redirect" they already know the answer! (By the way, the section could be generalized after merge, because it is not clear for me what is so special about Wiktionary in regard to other sister projects.) --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great idea. If it goes through, I'd recommend marking Wikipedia:Soft redirect as historical, but leaving it in place, particularly for the wikilinks at the bottom. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll wait 2 more days and proceed. This issue seems trivial after all. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Split of template examples
I propose a split of all the template examples. The main entry point for any template newbie is probably Template messages, so these tables should be integrated there in a normal manner. It feels weird that this important guideline is largely a simple listing of templates, when there is a serious need to document both a transwiki process and sisters' soft redirects here. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC) I'll wait 2 more days and proceed. This issue seems trivial after all. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that among links to this page quite a number suggests to look for templates here. I'm leaving this for a while, until there are other opinions. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggested split. The template list belongs on a separate page sorted under Template messages. And the name you have suggested for the new page feels right: Template messages/Sister projects.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Commonsimages cat
editprotected

As there was a Template:Commonsimages for images, and a Template:Commons cat for when you need to link to a category, I thought it sensible to have a combination of the two, Template:Commonsimages cat. Please could someone add this template beneath Template:Commonsimages so that people know it exists? Hopefully this will help prevent people from embedding too many images directly in articles! Many thanks,  J Rawle  (Talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes this template should probably be added to the list. But could you document what parameters it takes? (On its /doc page that is.) Remember to make it clear if those parameters should contain the "Category:" part or not.
 * And since you seem to know how these templates work, could you also document the parameters for Commons cat ? It would be much appreciated.
 * I have now changed the protection level of this page to semi-protected so you can now add the template to this page yourself.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the protection. I've added the template, and also provided documentation as requested.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah looks good. Very clear and readable documentation in both of those templates now. Thanks!
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose Wikifiction sisterproject
I would like to propose a sister project that deals with fiction. Is this the right place to do it? If not, where should it done? If so, I hereby propose it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The place is called Meta. There's already a project named like that by the way, Wikifiction. Cenarium  Talk  23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean one that has articles on fictional topics, like comics characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
There's been unresolved conflict on this page for a while now. That's not surprising; obviously, a page devoted to sister projects is going to have tension between supporters of the sister projects and people who are focused on Wikipedian processes. I'm proposing a cessation of hostilities at WT:Layout. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're making progress at WT:LAYOUT on a compromise. Part of the compromise is that this page be removed from Category:General style guidelines.  Weigh in if you care one way or the other. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem
1: Almost all of the basic Sister templates (listed at Template messages/Sister projects) have the first link leading to a parent-project-explanation-page, and the second link leading to the actually wanted resource. eg :

I have just heard my 4th complaint from friends about this, so thought I would try and determine where/when/why this became the standard, and if there might be any chance of a change.

2: Something along the lines of:

Has this been suggested&rejected before?

Note that Wiktionary is the main exception - it links to the word definition page first. Also, many of the templates could not be easily reordered/reworded in a short manner (eg Wikisource and Wikinewshas)

Wikimedia Commons has more pictures of: foobar 3: One option, would be to remove the parent-project-explanation-page link completely, as Commonsimages currently does, giving the completely unambiguous:

I'd think that to be potentially the best solution, as it eliminates the rewording issue, and retains the initial context-explanation of where the link is going to lead to.

Meta has related information at: foobar 4: Another possible change, is linking the project-icon to the parent-project-explanation-page. (This would be instead of linking to the icon's image-page (as Wikibookspar does), and instead of matching the link to the relevant-resource page (as the others mostly do, like the 3 embedded examples above)). eg:

Thoughts? Alternatives? Ask elsewhere? AbandonAllHope? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of adding numbers to your examples above so it is easier to discuss.
 * I agree with you Quiddity. That is, the actually wanted resource should be the first and preferably also the only visible link. As it is now it is probably very confusing for beginners. And even for me as an experienced Wikipedia editor it is annoying to have to spend some seconds to decide on which of the links it is I should click.
 * Thus I prefer option 3 above with only one link. If people want to know what that project is, they can just follow the link and then look in the menus and footer on that page for plenty of links to learn more about that project. And right, option 3 also means it doesn't matter if the project name comes before or after the link.
 * As second choice I prefer option 2 or 4. Not sure which one is the better of those two. Since I haven't decided yet if it is a good or bad thing to have links on our icons here at Wikipedia. (And that's a whole other discussion. But anyway, I think setting links on the icons actually breaks most image licenses, since that means it becomes much too hard to find the attribution for the icon.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping me communicate more clearly, always appreciated :)
 * Yeah, option 3 would be my preference too. Hopefully we'll get one or two more voices for a consensus to act. Also, I agree with your comments on the issues around icon/image-links (ie. not a technique we should be promoting); we should probably just add links to and improve the description at the image's pages, instead. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that having the first link not lead to the actual resource is a poor implementation. If we don't link the project in the text, can we link the image to the project description page please? There should be some form of link there, even if it's not obvious.  And can I also request that whichever poor soul gets the job of updating all the templates, can you please update them all to use  while you're at it? Happy‑melon 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the templates are fully-protected, otherwise I'd offer to do all the work. I could have a go at updating the ones that aren't though..?
 * I agree that we should update to use sister throughout.


 * As for where the image should link: The default action of sister is currently to link the image to a search for the "actual resource" at the target project (see eg the Wikiversity templates above). Given the widespread use of the template, we'd possibly need a new/separate discussion to discuss a change to that(?). -- Quiddity (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quiddity: I think you should go ahead and start updating these message boxes. Sure, we are only three editors here discussing it so far, but we all agree about what needs doing. And the change is fairly minor. And if nothing else doing the updates is a way to get attention from other editors.
 * And right, the search link on the images that some of these templates use is partly a separate discussion. So I'll start that discussion in the subsection below.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. I"ll add a list below of the fully-protected boxes. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have done what I can.
 * There are a handful that I wasn't sure what to do with (the wikibooks and wikisource templates with multiple links, including cookbook, 1911 britannica, etc); and the majority were fully-protected, so admins will have to do rest of the work. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have noted that I should help you with that in my to-do list. I am currently several days behind in working my watch list and about two months behind in my to-do list...
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image link in the sister boxes
In the discussion above we brought up the issue that some of the "sister project message boxes" such as wiktionary has a link on the image to the search page on for instance Wiktionary. Technically this is implemented by the meta-template sister that message boxes like wiktionary uses. I see from the talk page of and its edit history that this feature was added without any real discussion.

I am generally opposed to adding links on any images here at Wikipedia for a number of reasons. Here are my reasons for this case:

1: Such links are confusing, since here at Wikipedia the normal case is that clicking on an image takes you to the image's description page.

2: It makes it exceedingly hard to find the license information for the image. Only experienced template coders can now find the image description pages in this case. In this case if you see say wiktionary on a page it means reading the article code, finding out that it is the template that produces the message box, then reading the template code of  to figure out that these templates use the meta-template sister, then reading the rather complex template code of  to find out the name of the image and then manually cut and paste the image name in that code and add "File:" in front of it to reach the image description page...

3: I think setting links on the icons actually breaks most image licenses, since that means it becomes much too hard to find the attribution for the icon. But in this specific case the images are owned by the Wikimedia foundation, so it might not be a problem. But at the bottom of every Wikipedia page the GPL license is mentioned, so then making it very hard to find out that these images are not GPL is perhaps even worse.

4: I think the search links here are not needed. Previously these boxes linked to the main page of those projects, which kind of was logical, but also is unneeded. Since the text in these boxes do link to a page on that project. (Like the linked word "example" in the box to the right.) And on that page there are menus on the left side with plenty of links to the main page, search and everything else you might want to know about that project.

So I think we should remove the image links from sister. Thus making the images link to their file description pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree, on all 4 points. Especially point #1.
 * However, the only help/policy page I could find mentioning this behavior was meta:Help:Navigational image (found via Image use policy which links to meta:Help:Redirect which links there) which points out a variety of ways to achieve just this. (Imagemaps, and click-templates, mainly)
 * Here at WP we had many arguments discussions over the use of Click, which now has a note at the top saying "It has been updated to avoid the accessibility problems caused by an earlier version." (I don't know how true that is, or what was changed). It's main use is in the "spoken article" icon, and some portal links.
 * So, A) how do imagemaps get around the not-linking-to-image-license issue?
 * B) We probably need to write something about this at one of our local help/policy pages. All I know is written above, so I cannot help with sample text. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the "link=" parameter in the MediaWiki image markup is new. So this is kind of a new problem, and thus as far as I know there are no policies written about this yet.
 * A) But right, we have had image maps for some years now. I guess people simply have not realised or bothered about the license / copyright problem with image maps. But basically, if you use anything else than a public domain image as an image map, then I think the person who holds the copyright for that image can sue you. Since pretty much all other license forms such as GPL and most of the Creative Commons licenses require proper attribution. I think the only excuse you can use in such a case is that usually our image maps are so small that in most jurisdictions the icon might be too small to be considered a copyrightable "work".
 * So personally I think that the Wikimedia foundation should give the order to the devs to disable the image "link=" feature on its projects. Unfortunately. Copyright problems suck... (But probably keep the image map feature since it is harder to use, and thus is only used by experienced editors who hopefully know how to read policies.)
 * B) And right, this needs to be brought up for discussion for instance in the Village pumps, and the Wikimedia foundation lawyer needs to be informed and consulted, and we need to write a policy about it.
 * Oh, and that is why I have been so chatty about it here. I needed to write down and process my thoughts about it, before we bring this up on the Village pump etc.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. (My apologies for previously writing when sleepy and not researching things properly...) Imagemaps are usually ok because they include an icon at the bottom of their frame linking to the imagepage (see Template:Imagemap). However, there are imagemaps without this function, such as in the infobox at PATCO Speedline. I'm not sure how to evaluate how prolific the 2nd method is?
 * The question now, is how using Click gets around not-linking to the license. whatlinkshere for template namespace seems to give the overall picture for where it is used (widely). Possibly the answers are in an archive somewhere, but the only mention I can find is at Template talk:Click which doesn't bode well.
 * I'm going to request that Template:Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate have the "click" replaced with an imagemap (like Featured article now uses), and see if that clarifies where click is being mis/used.
 * I've also just noticed(remembered!) the existence of WikiProject Usability/Clickable images. Argh! readreadread... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of separation
An editor with a history of POV pushing has started an RfC (science) here about whether or not he should create a quote page on Wikiquote as a repository for pro-POV quotes (marketing materials, from the looks of it). All of the replies have pointed out that Wikiquote is not part of Wikipedia, and therefore this is a pointless conversation, but the editor doesn't seem to care.

I thought that referring the editor to this page might be useful, but I don't see anything here that will actually help the editor understand the problem. Should this page have a section that says, in essence, "Wikipedia editors don't get to decide what happens at any other Wikimedia project"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)