Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

The contents of Wikipedia:How_to_link_to_Wikimedia_projects were merged into Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. The page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives
1

Contents 1 Split of template examples 2 Merge a section on soft redirects to Wiktionary 3 Fiction sister project 4 Commonsimages cat 5 Disputed 6 Propose Wikifiction sisterproject 7 Proposal 8 Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem 8.1 Image link in the sister boxes 9 Clarification of separation 10 Placement redux

[edit] Split of template examples

I propose a split of all the template examples. The main entry point for any template newbie is probably Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Template messages. And the name you have suggested for the new page feels right: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge a section on soft redirects to Wiktionary

I'd like to merge Wikipedia:Soft redirect#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to Wiktionary (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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, JRawle (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. JRawle (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, m: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)

[edit] 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#Sister links. - 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects - link order problem

At Wikiversity, you can learn about: foobar

1: Almost all of the basic {{Sister}} templates (listed at Wikipedia: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 {{Wikiversity|foobar}} :

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.

Learn about foobar at Wikiversity.

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}})

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.

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 {{sister}} 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)

[edit] Image link in the sister boxes

Look up example in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

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 {{sister}} 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 {{wiktionary}} that produces the message box, then reading the template code of {{wiktionary}} to figure out that these templates use the meta-template {{sister}}, then reading the rather complex template code of {{sister}} 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.

Look up example in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

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 Wikipedia:Image use policy#Related topics which links to meta:Help:Redirect#Images linking to a specific page 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#Erm... copyright violation central 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images. Argh! readreadread... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)