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 [1] 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]

I'm not sure about different screen widths, but trying a few of these above suggestions on the preview function when editing the template's sandbox reveals that there shouldn't be a line wrap, even for 'About this term at Wiktionary', my preferred choice. I agree, after reading an encyclopedic article, few will want to click to simply read a definition.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys!
There is a missing sister project, Wikipedia:book:PAGE
On Anthropology there is such a book. It would be tidier if the book went into the sister project link box. It means adding a letter to the parameter list. Can do?Botteville (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville: There might be some confusion here: the Wikimedia Foundation has several projects that they help to curate with the work of volunteers like you and me. These projects are published via the Web but they have also been burned to DVDs and printed as books as well. There is a sister project named Wikibooks which makes free guides, tutorials, and textbooks. There are also physical books made of paper that can be created out of any Wikimedia Foundation project. I think you might be confusing the two or under the impression that the ability to make print books of this content is a separate "sister project" when it's not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Looking for the word "book" at Anthropology, I find a small box (generated by the {{Wikipedia books}} template) in its "External links" section, which displays a link to Book:Anthropology. As noted above, this page is in the Book namespace within Wikipedia, and is not part of a separate sister project. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I was afraid you'd say that, but at least the width adjests to the sister box.Thanks.Botteville (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a new parameter for the template, to be named commonscat or something like this, with possible values yes or no, in order to automatically add prefix Category: to the commons link if yes, since frequently there is a need to write it manually. The template already has similar parameter, author, which adds an Author: prefix to the Wikisource link.--ɴõɴəχүsƚ 16:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but good luck getting it done. My request (above) has sent around un-actioned for three months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I even wrote it into the sandbox. Here's an example how it works:

--ɴõɴəχүsƚ 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonexyst: I'm not opposed to it as such but why is this necessary? We can already add commons=Category:X and achieve the same result, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: there is a large mass of articles which don't have corresponding commons page, but they have a commons category. In many cases, name of this category is the same as the name of an article, so it's easier and shorter to write commonscat=yes than commons=Category:X. For the same purposes, we have separate templates, {{commons}} and {{commons category}}, and author parameter in this template, so I think it would be fine to make some uniformity.--ɴõɴəχүsƚ 11:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be redundant, and tehrefor add unnecessary complexity. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonexyst: It should be live now. Let me know if it breaks anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help. I'll monitor as I use the template.--ɴõɴəχүsƚ 14:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: This change may have caused a problem. In the Sister project links box at the article Saturn, the Commons link now goes to a search for Saturn, despite the fact that the html is marked "commons=Saturn (planet)", which I assume previously made the link go directly to the correct Commons gallery. This is just an example, a link problem I just happened across, but I presume it affects many articles. This needlessly adds an extra step for anyone trying to reach the Commons page for (the planet) Saturn from the Wikipedia article, so I assume it was unintended. SJ Morg (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because |commons= was changed to |c= at the same time, possibly breaking many articles. Was this change intended? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where this conversation left off, but someone privy to the changes should really update the documentation. I just spent a good ten minutes trying to figure out why the usual formatting stopped working. Either revert the change to |c= or add it as an alternative to |commons= or revert this whole change until someone wants to figure it out. – czar 21:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]