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 [1], 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]

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]

I wonder if there is any chance to adjust the template, so the introductory text would be set to three lines, i.e.

To explain, in most cases now the names result in appearing in two separate lines with first names of authors being displayed at the end of the first, while their surnames at the beginning of the second line, for a change (see an example). Would not be more efficient to adjust it as mentioned, or to simplify the general text at least to only

MiewEN (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MiewEN: Good suggestion. Done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Justin (koavf) Great! Thank you. MiewEN (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current sequence of params (ready for copy/paste):

{{Sister project links 
| 1= | display= | author= | wikt= | commons= 
| n= | q= | s= | b= | voy= | v= | d= 
| species= | species_author= | m= | mw= }}

Proposed sequence of params:

{{Sister project links 
| 1= | display= | author= 
| b= | commons= | d= | m= | mw= | n= | q= | s=
| species= | species_author= | v= | voy= | wikt= }}

An alphabetical order makes some more sense. First three (non-sisters) stay there. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, at San Diego–Tijuana, the commons link that the template provides is a search on "San Diego–Tijuana", which yields San Diego–Tijuana, a page with 3 photos.

What it should do is link to the parent Category:San Diego–Tijuana, with about 10 subcats plus 20 or so loose photos. A casual user won't realize this is available. There must be a way to link the parent category, but it wasn't obvious (to me) in the template documentation. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tillman: There are two solutions: improve the gallery at Commons or use commons:Category:San Diego–Tijuana in the template. I don't know why or how that's not clear, though: you can choose any link that you want from any parameter... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to integrate Template:Commons and category into this template? For my project on Briarcliff Manor, I want to link to the Commons gallery and category using this template; at the time I can only choose on or the other. Can the above-mentioned template's "(category)" part be added to this template? Thanks.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 07:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: It would be nice to see them all merged into this at some point but for now, there are many interwiki sister link templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks for the reply, weirdly enough I'm only seeing it now. What I'm trying to describe isn't easy, and yes I agree that this template should be used instead of all of the separate 'sister project' templates. But do you know how this template links to Commons categories? It would be useful if it could link to a Commons category as well as a Commons gallery (e.g. Commons:France and Commons:Category:France). Does that make sense?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: I guess it could be done but I honestly don't see the value in it. If the gallery is "better" or more useful, link to it--it will be in the category. If the category is more useful, link to that--the gallery will certainly be right there at the top of it. Since Commons uses categories more for navigation than galleries just as an historical accident, you may want to default to categories. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add class=noviewer to all images so that they don't appear in media viewer. This is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Media Viewer#Some images need to be excluded and it has already been done at Template talk:Portal#edit protected November 21 2014 where it's already been done. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: Like this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not needed; The template already has the metadata class, and all images have |link= set so Media Viewer is never invoked. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, it doesn't seem to be working. These images still came up while browsing media viewer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a test, go here [2] and hit your right arrow key. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a possible bug. I'm not putting in the class=noviewer just yet... to give us a chance to investigate. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I get no mediaviewer to load when I go to World War II, navigating to the World War II#Advances in technology and warfare section, and click on the File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_141-1880,_Peenemünde,_Start_einer_V2.jpg image. Your specific link there forces mediaviewer by calling it with World War II#mediaviewer/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_141-1880,_Peenemünde,_Start_einer_V2.jpg. I oppose this change as it is unneeded. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My link was to the image before the one that should be excluded. So, if you follow that media viewer link, hitting the next image button should take you back to the top (the montage in the infobox), and should not bring you to the wikibooks logo. Readers browsing images for World War 2 should see images of World War 2 and not our sister project logos. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The icons came from {{World War II}}, not here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link from this template to Wiktionry states "Definitions from Wiktionary".

That is an extremely narrow description of what Wiktionary provides. The entries at Wiktionary also provide an etymology, IPA pronunciation, pronunciation audio files, rhyming words, historical and variant spellings, inflection or conjugation, usage information, dated historical citations, etymologically related terms, synonyms, antonyms, anagrams, translations into other languages, and more. (See wikt:parrot for an example of what Wiktionary actually provides in an entry.)

So, saying "Definitions from Wiktionary" is rather demeaning of that project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey:Do you have a suggested alternative? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just say "Entry on Wiktionary". A Wiktionary entry is the equivalent of a Wikipedia article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that wiktionary isn't nearly as known as Wikipedia and some might not be aware that it's a dictionary. How about "about this word at Wiktionary"? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see "About this term at Wiktionary". I'd rather use term than word, because the entry is sometimes a phrase, abbreviation, or something other than a word. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I posted a link here at the Village Pump seeking more comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those like me who need this context: Anarchism#External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per EncycloPetey's comment, where WP has an "Article" tab, Wiktionary has an "Entry" tab. Not the last word by any means, but it's something. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most English speakers are familiar with the term "dictionary entry", more so than "entry in the dictionary". So "Wiktionary entry" might work best. It departs from the x from y meme, but then so does "Database entry x on Wikidata". Considering that Wiktionary rhymes with dictionary and only dictionary, "people might not be aware that it's a dictionary" seems a weak argument. Especially if you used "Wiktionary entry", I suspect most readers could figure it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Dictionary entry from Wiktionary", consistent with "Database entry x on Wikidata". Would probably result in a line wrap not present now, a minor point. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents For what it's worth, I don't think that using "definitions" is reductive because dictionaries routinely include etymologies, pronunciation guides, see alsos, etc. Wiktionary is probably the most robust dictionary in the world and provides plus ultra content to a definition but still I can't imagine anyone not clicking on the link because he thinks it will lack declensions. The most important thing is to keep it very pithy to avoid wrapping lines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The other side: If you're here on Wikipedia reading a full article about anarchism or the prophet Habakkuk, would you then follow a link promising merely a "definition"? Saying that Wiktionary provides just definitions defeats the purpose of having the sister link by emphasizing the wrong bit of content over all others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but I disagree that the most important thing is to avoid a line wrap. We should be as useful as possible, avoiding a line wrap if possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]