It seems my bold edit to set the default to no was reverted, as I was unaware of earlier consensus to have it enabled. I believe it should be off, as other transclusions before this option existed did not know about this option, and having it on by default now has the link in a lot of articles where it is not applicable. Regardless of whether the other options that are enabled are worthy of their default setting, at least an editor could manually disable them when they added the template and saw the unwanted option(s). In the case of older additions of "Sister project links", is anyone signing up to fix any of the 4000+ transclusions. This breaks the concept of backwards compatability, where old settings with new template functionality is not providing same display anymore.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, there are instances where Wikivoyage may not seem relevant in an article, but it can be useful. The Wikivoyage link at Abraham Lincoln links to search results with information about his birthplace, hometowns, where he started his political career, etc. For that reason, I modified the wording so that when voy= is not used, it says "Travel information" rather than "Travel guide". I don't see any particular harm from the current default; everything takes time and the voy=no can be done gradually. Already, I have had a go with AWB at removing some irrelevant Wikivoyage links, though I believe the task is better done by everyday users as they come across them. Is the default causing any display issues or irregularities? JamesA ^>talk 04:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just dont see the need to force Wikivoyage upon users of this template. Some earlier options chose to (IMO wrongly) do so, but applying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems like a bad precedent as a way to legitimize Wikivoyage's standing with those projects. I saw the voyage link in Andrew Bynum, which makes no sense as a reader, and makes even less sense after I click on the results. There must be 1000's others like it. It's too bad Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Anonybot didnt also mark all previously existing "Sister project links" with voy=no at least to keep the display of all old instances the same. It provides no benefit to the reader, and only lessens people's perception (even more) of Wikipedia content if non-sense spam-like links such as in Bynum's article exist.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why the Sister project links template is being used on Andrew Bynum, considering that there are only two projects being displayed. Wouldn't it have been more logical to use two of the specific templates? And there is much benefit to both readers and Wikipedia as a whole. It supplies readers with useful travel information not available on Wikipedia, while also encourages travel edits on that Wikivoyage rather than on Wikipedia where it is out of scope. I don't think the links can be called "nonsense" and "spam", and I don't see how it can be said that the links denigrate Wikipedia's image. JamesA ^>talk 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially concerned with any one article; they can be fixed individually. The worry is that 1000's of articles that did not expect a voyage link because they just didnt exist before now get them by default, and can have issues like Bynum or Sun mentioned below by Vanischenu. re: "encourages travel edits on that Wikivoyage": I don't think we need a link to every sister project merely to encourage edits.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hide it:

  

  Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, while Wikivoyage is a guide on a single topic. At present, the link to Wikivoyage is on articles like Sun and Pluto, Ancient Egypt, Cardiac arrest, Mathematics and Chemistry, and so on. Do they offer tour to such places? It would be cool! Whether or not Wikiquote is shown by default is out of scope here. The inclusion criteria for Wikivoyage is too tight, and tries to merge nearby places into a single one. Also, we have around 4500 articles using this template, and only a small fraction are related to geography; setting parameter to no by default would make it easier and saves a lot of edits and time.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Vanischenu, after seeing this deployed I will have to agree not the best idea. Also concerned that Template:Wikivoyage and Template:Wikivoyage-inline that are much more predominate (thus seen more) are being removed. I would guess they are being removed because of this interrogation so they are not duplicated on pages. If the template goes back to hidden by default there are many many pages that will have to be fixed ...meaning Template:Wikivoyage and Template:Wikivoyage-inline have to be placed back.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikivoyager but from what I've seen the project is more than just geographical locations. I admit it is mostly locations but it has things like travel topics and itineraries which provide a wider range of coverage. "Ancient Egypt", to take one example, could be the basis for an itinerary linked to the Egypt page: a tour, or tours, of important sites relevant to Ancient Egypt and for making plans to see these sites. I don't think that page exists yet but perhaps someone following the link would be inspired to start it. The other examples could be relevant to itineraries based on the history of science. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take an example, a user goes to Aaron Swartz, gets surprised to see a tour guide on it, and clicks on it to get into a search for Aaron Swartz on Wikivoyage. They would see is:

There were no results matching the query.

Create the page "Aaron Swartz" on this wiki!'

This is humiliating! They clicked the link to know more about. We shouldn't offer to given anything if we have nothing on it! This is just disruptive. (I was hurt by the Wikiquote links, and felt really embarrassed. It also left me a bad impression of the site. The same would happen to that unfortunate fellow) And suppose that the user were inspired to create it. You can guess what would happen! If he keeps his inspiration up, he would soon get blocked. If we are looking to advertise the project or recruit more members, we should think of better ways, not by hurting the readers.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 19:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the template reads "Find more about {{PAGENAME}} at Wikipedia's sister projects" and not as "check if there is anything about..."···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 20:04 & 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that bad (or any worse than other projects). Nevertheless, what about making a bot request to add voy=no to pages with no sister page on Wikivoyage? (The bot would have to be able to check the Wikivoyage API or something similar to do this but I think its technically possible.) That leaves Wikivoyage in a equitable position for all future uses of this template, in which cases users will know about the project and can do this manually if needs be, without having to deal with the cludge of blocking it to maintain backwards compatibility. Itineraries etc remain a possibility for the future in many of these articles, at least. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here because I found a link to WikiVoyage on Jane McGonigal's article, and my immediate reaction once I saw the code was "Why the hell is the default not no?" It looks pretty stupid to offer travel information for topics that will never have pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the default needs to be changed. I just came here because I saw that WikiVoyage had a link in Death of Osama bin Laden. I have since turned that link off, but there are literally thousands of articles that used this box prior to WikiVoyage being added, and almost none of them have a corresponding WikiVoyage page. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea is that only projects created before this template was made are eligible for automatic inclusion? That's unfair and biased. Whether a project is automatically included in this template or not should only be based on the relative merits of doing so, not on order of operations. Powers ^T 01:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. The problem is this template existed before Wikivoyage. Whoever added the template could have decided which defaults they were happy with and which they wanted to override. Then, Wikivoyage was blindly added to all old users of the template, whether it was suitable or not. This is caused pages like Sun and thousands others to have a laughable link to WikiVoyage. If this setting was worthy of being on by default, old instances of the template should have been coded to turn Wikivoyage off e.g. via a bot until someone manually decided to enable on a per-article basis. Then, WikiVoyage could have been enabled, and all new users could have made a conscious decision if the option was suitable for them. This was a complete oversight, and further lack of due diligence after the problem was identified. Good luck finding which instances didn't consciously want the default now.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, to an extent, disabling it on existing transclusions would have defeated the point. Then we'd have articles on actual places that don't have the link to Wikivoyage until someone thinks to go in and put it there. I think that's worse than having extraneous links. Powers ^T 13:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply time time to take it off. To many useless links and complaints. Not sure why this external link is special or how it help THIS project.Moxy (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not special; that's the point. The idea was to treat Wikivoyage links just like Wikibooks or Wikiversity links. Powers ^T 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've been an editor on Wikiversity since 2006 and can tell you firsthand that it has never matured into a truly useful sister project. It's never had a large community of editors and a lot of the content there is now generated by people who have been banned from other projects (e.g. fringe science POV-pushers and other crackpots). A large percentage of the pages are just unfinished stubs with no useful content[2][3] or no content at all[4][5]. Wikiversity pretty much never deletes anything, so it has gradually become filled with cruft. I don't really think we're doing our readers any favors by sending them there. At the very least it should be put at the bottom of the list. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At en.wn, although we'd always intended to avoid sitting in judgement of our sisters (being very oriented toward avoiding subjective judgements), we realized a few years ago we were inadvertently implying such a judgement through the ordering of the sister links from our category pages. Our solution was to reorder the sister links alphabetically, excluding the "wiki-" or "wik-" prefix: Wikibooks, Commons, Wikidata, Meta, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc. --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is growth potential for Wikiversity, and have chosen to create teaching materials on Wikiversity for a number of reasons:

1. Wikitext is easy to copy, revise, and print as a pdf file -- without violating copyright laws. The number and quality of free online course materials is growing, but only a wiki allows an instructor to edit the material to suit his/her teaching style.
2. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia now has all the content needed for a bachelor's degrees in mathematics and in physics, as well as for a one-year astronomy course (for non-majors). Although it has not yet been done, this material could be copied, edited, and assembled into usable form on Wikiversity or Wikibooks. In principle, this could reduce each student's cost of a college education by a thousand dollars in textbook costs. This advancement is recent, and possible only because Latex-like wikitext formulas have recently become prevalent on Wikipedia. We at Wikiversity are not complaining about our big sister being slow to get physics equations into wiki form, but we do ask for patience as this material makes its way into Wikiversity. The ability to copy directly from Wikipedia is an advantage Wikiversity has over university hosted wiki sites such as http://physwiki.ucdavis.edu/.
3. Our affiliation with Wikipedia ensures that Wikiversity will be always be a stable platform. Let me illustrate "unstable platform": (1) An effort to put a bank of physics problems on the internet by the University of Texas at El Paso died soon after 2001 when the professor left (and there was no reason for UTEP to continue hosting the site). (2) A number of free java codes to simulate ray optics have disappeared, and I strongly suspect that the motive was to sell the software.

• Another reason to keep Wikiversity healthy has nothing to do with its potential for helping to transform college education. A couple of months ago, what we suspected was a pair of well-intentioned juveniles began to make destructive edits on Wikipedia pages about electronics. We "tamed" them as their edits both improved and also tapered off. But had they continued to edit, I would have invited them onto Wikiversity...where they could learn. --guyvan52 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 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 [6], 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]

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]