Here is a short list of some page subjects that I think this would be immediately useful on:

• everyday terms (cloud)
• countries, continents, states
• famous people (especially authors and political leaders)
• sciences (astronomy, etc.)
• sports

Some of these may currently only have one box, but there is a lot of information on other projects which would be of potential interest. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's neat in the current form BUT many projects may be irrelevant to a particular article. Instead of the current all inclusive form, I suggest it be modified like the babel template which allows a neat rendering of multiple language links. User:Nichalp/sg 04:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

If too few sister projects have information on a topic, just use the individual boxes. This is intended to replace 4-7 of those in an effort to reduce box clutter. The babel template fails to avoid using meta-templates, and in this templates case, we have a good alternative. -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This template was nominated for deletion, but got no consensus either way so it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details. It was suggested in the discussion to modify this template to resemble the Babel-templates, and to provide a way to not link to sisterprojects if they don't have relevant information for a particular article. Radiant_>|< 09:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Articles on this topic in other Wikimedia projects can be found at: commons:category:Science

I am currently starting a sisterlinks project of my own. It happens to use the Template:Sisterlinks as well. See my template on for instance Wikiquote category:Science. The aim is more or less the same:

1. reducing the number of templates on a page (only one common one)
2. add links to sister projects

I could pick an other name for my template (which I will do if needed), but I noticed there is some discussion on the template on wikipedia. My proposal is to fully replace this template by mine. What is the comunities thoughts on this matter? HenkvD 17:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop it MPF. On the Main page it clearly says sister links not sibling links.--God_of War 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Sister projects is an official style guide for wikipedia.--God_of War 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to put up with this distasteful sexism appearing on (potentially) thousands of pages? Please come up with some more sensible terminology - it isn't difficult. - MPF 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see what is sexist about sister. It is the accepted term in the english language - get used to it.--God_of War 01:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it means female. Not everyone wants everything to be associated with femaleness. How about making half of them brotherlinks? But far better, use a gender-neutral term. There are plenty to choose from. That way, you won't be offending anyone. - MPF 08:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sister project" is the term used on the Main_Page, so that is what is used here. I suggest you bring your suggestion to a wider audience on the Village pump and gain support for a project-wide change. I will say that I hate the term "sibling", in this context, to no end. -- Netoholic @ 09:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is the relevant project page for discussing this? How about 'other projects' or 'related projects' then? The trouble with the village pump is that discussions there disappear into the archives so quickly it is hard to achieve anything useful - MPF 10:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "sister" isn't sexist: sexism is "discrimination against people based on their sex", and this has absolutely nothing to do with that. Second, one of the meanings of "sister" is "closely associated; seeming to be related. (Example: sister city)" This is precisely the sense used by "sister projects". For once, I agree with Netoholic: "sibling" is ugly. dbenbenn | talk 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a special set of smal images, like the Swedish counterpart? It looks more sophisticated (equal spaces everywhere). MartinHagberg 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is too long for the template - it would be nice to cut this down - perhaps just "Definitions"? WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not work properly in Opera browser. --Haham hanuka 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to be more specific. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine under 8.51 for me. —Cryptic (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can do about this but gripe, since determined by the stylesheet, but this is very ugly. The icons are not the same height, so the lines are unevenly spaced. The box width is perversely set to vary along with the length of the lines, in such a way that some of the line items take 2 lines, and others just one. The spacing between the lines (leading) is such that the icons feel cluttered. The general effect is klutzy and disagreeable.

Since this box is now a large item that is being added to everything these days, it is becoming very prominent. One suggestion to whoever can tinker with the stylesheet, is to turn it into a longer, (i.e., wider) box, that would be placed at the foot of the entries. That would (a) give it a more streamlined, less obtrusive look; (b) solve the unequal-lines problem, at least until someone starts to expand the text in some line. . . .Bill 18:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surveying the articles this has been applied to, most every use makes zero sense over the standard {{Commonscat}} template. All this does is clutter articles with extra non-operational links. It should be modified with switches so that only the given pertinent operable links are included. // FrankB 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong idea completely. This template is to consolidate several Wikipedia:Sister projects links where necessary. If too many of the links don't work, then it should not be used on that particular article. This template is also used on hundreds of pages, so please don't go changing anything so dramatically next time. -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to adding an optional parameter? Eg #if CommonsLink then Commonscat ((CommonsLink)) else (Search)? If commonscat does not format properly, I will be happy to create some code that does.

Really as pointed out above, on Commons we have some very good centralized collections on these subjects, and presenting the user with a search hit list is extremely suboptimal in that . There needs to be a way to opt out. -Mak Thorpe 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

add it to the template? -- 128.178.193.200 14:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the template. It's not a wikimedia foundation project so it can't really be described as a sister project.  YDAM TALK 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template looks a bit ugly due to the addition of Wikiversity which shows up Wikinews's small logo, perhaps all the line heights should be the same? Lcarsdata 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nzgabriel 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Image:WikiNews-Logo.svg to Image:Wikinews-logo.svg. Thanks. Siebrand 09:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ydone.

• i noticed the Wikisource link does not direct to the "Wikisource author" page if this sisterlink template is used to search for a person. Is there anyway we can modify this tempalate so when dealing with people, we can have the option to link directly to their Author:Personname article in Wikisource? For example, using th current design, if you searched for Mohandas K. Gandhi using this template in Wikisource, you get this Special:Search/Mahatma_Gandhi, but I would like to be able to force it to Author:Mohandas_K._Gandhi his actual wikisource page! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this -- see the same problem with Al Gore. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked around this by creating {{sisterlinks-author}}, and put it in these two articles. I hope it catches on elsewhere. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the linking to Commons is useless. Can be much more usable the Category:People! Anybody agree with me? --Beyond silence 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please change redirect wikilink from [[Wikipedia:Sister projects|sister projects]] to [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects|sister projects]] in the template. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Sebastian 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should apply the same standard for this template as for disambiguation pages: Only one link per entry is enough. I don't see a compelling reason to link to the main page of each of these projects. That name can be seen from the mouseover texts ("tool tips") anyway. Also, the bold link to "sister projects" is really distracting. I propose therefore to change the template to the following, which also will simplify the template overall:

Find more about Sister project links on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Dictionary definitions
	Textbooks
	Quotations
	Source texts
	Images and media
	News stories
	Learning resources

— Sebastian 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with this template is that it requires either (a) all other projects to use the same name as the Wikipedia article, or (b) requires all other projects to use some other uniform identifier. This is often not the case. Consider Parrot, for instance. The relevant link for Wikispecies and Commons is Psittaciformes, not "Parrot". For the English Wiktionary, it is parrot with a lower-case p (Wiktionary is case-sensitive, since the capital form might be a German noun, or a word in some other language). As a result, this template is not as useful as it could be. It needs to be rewritten to allow project-specific arguments for linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]