I changed the template so that if voy= is unspecified, the default depends on Wikidata. If Property:P107 is "geographical feature", Wikivoyage is shown by default. Otherwise, it isn't.

This still makes some mistakes (for example, buildings would receive a Wikivoyage link), but it should clear up almost everything. The link is gone from Hamlet. :-) Ypnypn (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to work properly - see: Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park. It seems your edit has blocked the possibility to manually link to WV, and it will be needed for "non-geographic features", e.g. topics like air travel or hotels. I would simply disable default linking to WV, as there is a bot in development to take care of interwikilinks. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking at the code, it's checking Wikidata whenever the voy= parameter is anything other than "no". What it should be doing is checking Wikidata only when the voy= parameter is blank. Powers ^T 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fixed now; let me know if there are more problems. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I was afraid that fixing this would require duplication of code. That'll make it hard to maintain. Maybe it's time to rewrite this template in Lua? Powers ^T 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using {{#ifexpr: with or to avoid the duplication, but apparently it can only deal with numbers. This can certainly be Lua-ified; if you want to, go ahead. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's only displaying WikiVoyage links for actual places, can we move it up a bit in the list? For most geographical locations, the WikiVoyage article is going to be more useful than the Wikiquote or Wikiversity results. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++. Also, Ypnypn, it doesn't seem to be displaying properly for a number of geographical articles; i.e. [1] (before I added it by hand). Is this because of an issue with Wikidata coding? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• user:Ypnypn and all, it looks like Property P107 has been deprecated, which is why this isn't working anymore. Bummer :( I'm trying to figure out what it might be replaced by...left a comment here -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There they suggest following the Russian Wikipedia's method of using a template which in turn calls a Scribuntu module to check directly if the page exists. Unfortunately, we don't have the template on the English Wikipedia, and our equivalent module is missing the necessary functionality. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the template does not use Wikivoyage but it is still mentioned in the /doc. Was this the idea? I wanted to add a reference from Portofino where there are now TWO different sister links templates, one for Wikivoyage and the other for everyhing else. It is ok with me if the majority thinks it should not be done, but then the /doc must be changed to reflect the consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone integrate it with Wikidata entries? A good example is in {{Authority control}}. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I do not have enough skills to do this. @Docu: could you help me with this? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Subject bar}} does it in another way, I've created Template:Sister project links/testcases to adapt it here. JackPotte (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When should the Wikidata link be turned "on" when this template is used? Doesn't every (or almost every) Wikipedia article have a corresponding Wikidata page (in which case the link should be on by default)? Please place some guidance in the documentation for this template.

When turning on the Wikidata link, since is is not shown by default, I put "d=yes"; however, the link is then displayed as "Database entry Yes on Wikidata". When I put the number of the WD page, it displayed as "Database entry Q15908324 on Wikidata". Also, should the WD attribute use the name of the page or the page ID? I came across this issue adding this template to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the corresponding WD page is [2], which is titled "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (Q15908324)" and uses "Q15908324" in the address bar. So, should the link be made to "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" or "Q15908324"? Using the wikilink d:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 doesn't work, but d:Q15908324 does...so I assume the latter is the page name? AHeneen (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to use this template to create links to Wikidata. Every article already has a link to its Wikidata page in the sidebar. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images should have an alt text. According to WP:ALT, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where purely decorative images are unlinked. This article displays two icons. A minimal alt text could be added; the Main Page has "Commons" and "Wikiversity" for these icons. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are the suggested changes. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: – WP:ALT explains that for logo links, the use of the caption also serves as the alt link. The two icons in the Debian article show what happens: One yields "Search Commons" and the other "Search Wikiversity". That satisfies the accessibility requirements. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the links on the Main Page are from a different template that follows the same rule: When the image is a logo, then the function of the logo is much more important than how the logo appears, so the caption parameter is used to supply the alt text for screen readers. – Paine 

When there are no images, the links disappear as well, so no "Search Commons" or "Search Wikiversity". The alt text tool does not think the accessibility requirements are met. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are the new suggested changes.

84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two items:

1. Looking at {{Sister project links | wikt= | commons= | b= | n= | q= | s= | v= | voy= | species= | d= | | m= | mw= | display=}} we have an empty space between the two pipes following "d=" . Is this intentional? If not, the space should be removed. If so, an explanation is needed.
2. Can the sequence of parameters be the same between the template and parameter explanation. E.g., "wikt=" is first and "commons=" is second. But commons is last in the explanation.

– S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not qualified to answer either question; if there is no reaction in a couple of days I will try to solicit users.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. APerson (talk!) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Fixed the space. Next is the order of parameters. – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second change completed. I.e., put in missing parameters and matched example to table with descriptions. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon thinking a bit more about this, perhaps the best thing is to revise both the example and the description table so that they match the exemplar that displays to the right. I'll give a day for comments. – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The example template and the documentation now match the image of the template in terms of the sequence. However, Wikivoyage is not in the image. It is included in the example template and documentation. Thus I submit the following edit request:

See the comments above. Please add the image for Wikivoyage to the finished template image. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with reservations – and here's why: In order to make the Wikivoyage link appear, I had to go back to just before this edit and use that code. After that edit Wikivoyage stopped appearing in this template. I shall work with the code in the sandbox to see if I can get it to work as intended. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: does this do the trick? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. S – I'm sure the tags improve the function; however, after I'd completed another task I was going to come back to the sandox and reenter the code as it has been in the template since the edit I mentioned above. I supposed there was good reason to include the {{#if:... function, and I was going to see if I could use tags to make that code work so that the VOY would appear in the template. If you'll take a look at that code, maybe you can tell if all that's necessary or not:

|- style="height:25px;"
{{#if:{{{voy|}}}
 |{{#ifeq:{{{voy|}}}|no |
   | {{!}} [[File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg|25x25px|link={{fullurl:voy:{{{voy|Special:Search/{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|Search Wikivoyage]]
     {{!}} [[voy:{{{voy|Special:Search/{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|Travel {{#if: {{{voy|}}}| guide| information}}]] from Wikivoyage
  }}
 |{{#ifeq:{{#property:P107}}|geographical feature
   | {{!}} [[File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg|25x25px|link={{fullurl:voy:{{{voy|Special:Search/{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|Search Wikivoyage]]
     {{!}} [[voy:{{{voy|Special:Search/{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|Travel {{#if: {{{voy|}}}| guide| information}}]] from Wikivoyage
  }}
}}

??? – Paine  12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah, I see - we need to show Wikivoyage if |voy= is set, even if the Wikidata property doesn't have the right value. It's become a little more complicated, but this should do the trick without having to specify the actual Wikivoyage link more than once. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alrighty then! Let's go live! – Paine  13:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, still needs a few tweaks. – Paine  13:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thought it needed tweaks but probably not. Would you like to do the honors? or shall I? – Paine  14:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for taking a look at it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you! for your help – you did in five mins what would have taken me, well, quite a bit longer, I believe. I'll check the /doc to see if it could use an update. – Paine  14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure, S. Rich! – Paine  16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mr. Stradivarius: It appears that the documentation is still up to date; however, I see one thing that may be of concern. In the Default display section resides:
However, voy only displays by default if the entity type on Wikidata is "geographical feature".
That link is to Wikidata page d:Property:P107, which has been titled "(OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107)", and is further described:
** Do not use ** Due to be deleted. Please use instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)
I'm not sure if we should stay with that page or if there is a better link, such as d:Property:P31, d:Property:P279, or perhaps even d:Geographical object ("feature" on en wiki). Can you provide guidance? – Paine  16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Hmm, that is a problem. I had a look around, but I couldn't find any obvious replacement for this. I would try asking at d:Wikidata:Project chat to see if anyone at Wikidata can help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thank you, Mr. Stradivarius!  See d:Wikidata:Project chat#Wikipedia link. – Paine  20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius and Paine Ellsworth: Wikidata users already tried to help, here …    FDMS  4    17:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is wonderful, FDMS4! Is your take on that discussion to use P31 instead of P107, then? – Paine  18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm the wrong person to ask (just found the link in #Wikivoyage and would like to see this issue resolved, but am not competent enough to fix it myself).    FDMS  4    18:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Join the club! Let's see what happens when I sort of "unfork" the issue. – Paine  21:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that we should add simple.wikipedia to the template? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question – the matter of fact is that SW is not listed at WP:SIS, which is probably a better place to ask your question since this template follows that 12-sister guideline. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a separate language, it belongs to the sidebar rather than the bottom of articles, where it already can be found today …    FDMS  4    20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link for taxonomic authors who have pages on Wikispecies; see, for example, Charles Darwin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, why does the wikinews link appear to be hidden by default? I notice previous conversations about wikivoyage focusing on the number of location articles that would need to have this revealed. There are at least as many equivalent pages on wikinews, so not sure why it might be treated differently. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm … there are no "equivalent pages" on Wikinews at all – only articles on certain events from the viewpoint of a certain point in time and categories, which often only contain very few and old articles. So please don't change the default status for Wikinews.    FDMS  4    02:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has pages for subjects, e.g. France or politics. The location subjects is what I meant by equivalent pages to wikivoyage pages and the discussions surrounding them. Still don't really see why they aren't relevent to wikipedia. CSJJ104 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that is needed to show Wikinews is the n=yes parameter, correct? Editors who feel that it is needed to accompany another sister link can use that parameter, can't they? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But categories aren't normal pages like encyclopaedia or travel guide articles, but categories. And many categories on Wikinews contain only very few articles and therefore very few information, which is also often very old. As for the portals: Only every 9545th Wikipedia article has a corresponding Wikinews portal page, and they wouldn't even be linked to if the Wikinews link became visible by default on this template.    FDMS  4    22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are de-facto deprecated on en.wn. Categories are used. Conceptually, the difference is that a portal is oriented toward current news, from moment to moment —which, for most topics, wouldn't work very well on en.wn unless en.wn were a hundred or even a thousand times more active that it is atm— while categories are oriented toward the news archives (though of course things appear there immediately when published). --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for asking the question was that I had thought news articles, few or old as they may be, could still be of interest or use to a wikipedia reader, from the point of view of providing a different perspective or providing context from the time. It is possible I have misunderstood the criteria for adding a link to wikinews, is there a guide for this anywhere? CSJJ104 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikimedia sister projects#When to link: Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers. I personally doubt that some random news articles on, for example, politics would be useful for our readers. It would make sense to link to Portals offering full news coverage of the topic (which portals probably should have offered, see Pi zero's comment), but I guess Wikinews would need even more active users than Wikipedia to be able to offer that.    FDMS  4    00:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any sister project other than Wikipedia with any significant part of its community arrogant enough to even try to pass judgement on the quality of the pages provided by its sisters before linking to them. Which is ironic since contributors to the other sisters usually know far more about enclyclopedic writing than Wikipedians of that judgemental sort know about the other sisters on whose pages they try to pass judgement. Certainly at en.wn we're mostly present-or-past Wikipedians who link to corresponding Wikipedia articles no matter how bad the Wikipedia articles are. --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not a "Wikipedian".    FDMS  4    04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not primarily, I see, which I'll keep in mind fwiw. It doesn't impinge on my comment, though, which concerned Wikipedian sister-link practices. To amplify, it's of potential interest to a inquiring mind to consult the available neutral, accurate news published on a topic in an archive that will never go behind a paywall — and yes, we publish high-quality stuff, but defending the quality of Wikinews should be obviously irrelevant to the handling of sister links. The fact that it isn't perceived as irrelevant is a combination of the phrasing of Wikipedian policy, and the Wikipedian cultural norms that determine how that phrasing is interpreted. --Pi zero (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "neutral news" :o … And, of course, I'm not saying that all content on Wikinews is of bad quality – still, an incomplete high-quality news archive might not be relevant enough to link to it in the EL section of all articles using the sister project link template.    FDMS  4    22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody bothers to pursue neutral news writing, excusing themselves with the argument that perfection is metaphysically impossible so we clearly shouldn't be trying to do our best, then we would end up with the truly horrible state that mainstream journalism is actually in right now. En.wn is now in the position of having university journalism professors sending their students to us to learn about hard news.

I admit, I have difficulty finding a polite term (is "fatuous" polite?) for the idea that a news archive would have to be comprehensive to be useful to link to. As I say, we link to Wikipedia articles even when the Wikipedia articles are of, ah, extremely low quality; Wikipedia is a sister project, and we support sister projects. We even link to Wikispecies, and the one time I went over there to put in the usual reciprocal link back to Wikinews, found a rather skimpy set of templates for such things, and inquired at their forum (I forget just now what it's called) about how best to format sister links, the one user who replied at all asked why they would want to link to a sister project.

Again, though, there's zero validity to the idea that Wikipedia has any business putting itself up as a judge of sister projects.

The point about Wikinews not being comprehensive also loops back to the point about mainstream journalism being in a mess. The sororicidal anti-Wikinews set launched a big misinformation campaign... late last year, was it?... claiming Wikinews had failed its core mission, based on the stultifyingly obvious fact that it's not comprehensive. Now, Wikinews is relentlessly fact-oriented, so if (hypothetically) I were to launch a campaign centrally featuring a claim that some sister project was failing its core mission, the first thing I'd do would be to investigate and thoroughly understand what that sister's core mission actually is. It's striking that they didn't do that. It's apparently worse than merely being wrong about that central claim of their campaign, worse than knowingly spreading false information (lying), and worse than making stuff up without caring whether or not it's true (bullshit). As best I can tell, it's an example of something that has no such standard pithy name, which lately I've been calling "dogmatic fabrication": rather than instinctively always seeking for objective facts on which to base a position, the claimant starts by assuming that what they want to believe must be true, and then assume that if they invent claims to support their position, those claims will turn out to be true because they support a Righteous position. Dogmatic fabrication has been thriving lately, including significant parts of the mainstream media; it's the antithesis of knowledge, the antithesis of what —I sincerely hope— the wikimedian movement stands for, and frankly, exposing readers to the fact-based mindset of Wikinews is beneficial. --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editors CSJJ104, FDMS4 and Pi zero: Been at work on another issue (voy=) and started browsing around the n=yes parameter a bit, and frankly, I liked what I saw. Wikinews has come a long way, and we really should seriously consider making n=yes the default. I realize from the above discourse that this idea is still controversial, so I would not make Wikinews the default without due discussion process. I really do think that the plusses outweigh the minuses at this present point (heaven knows Wikipedia isn't quite perfect, yet) and would like to open an RfC if nobody objects vehemently. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editors CSJJ104, FDMS4 and Pi zero: Okay then, I have started an RfC here. Please feel welcome to come and add your rationales. – Paine  05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia already includes a link to Wikidata in the sidebar ("Wikidata item"). There is no reason to add a redundant link in the External links section. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly makes sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected to the proposal (and it's been a few weeks), I would like to request that the template be edited to remove the Wikidata parameter. The template sandbox has already been edited to reflect this change. Kaldari (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Had I seen this, I would have objected. The purpose is to guide users to our sister projects, so omitting one of them makes no sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]