Template talk:projectlink/Wikipedia
Proposed changes.
A few changes that I think are in order:
- A
scparameter should be supported, for when the link text isn't in the Latin script. (Technically an editor can already do this with something like{{pedialite|lang=he|2=<span style="font-weight:normal">{{Hebr|ענן}}</span>}}, but that's ugly and error-prone.) - Currently, the sidebar link always says "Wikipedia", even if it's linking to an article on a non-English Wikipedia. It would be a pain to make it say something in the target language, but at least it could say something like "Wikipedia (Hebrew)" or "Hebrew Wikipedia" or "The Hebrew Wikipedia" or something. (I really don't have a preference between those three options.)
- It would be nice if, in specifying the link target, we had
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}instead of{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}. That way, something like{{pedialite||text}}would work properly (instead of linking to http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/). - It would be nice if the link text had
{{{2|{{ucfirst:…}}}}}instead of{{ucfirst:{{{2|…}}}}}, since sometimes Wikipedia has articles whose titles are displayed with initial lowercase letters, such as w:eBay, and it should be possible for us to display those titles properly. (I'm not sure how often this comes up, but we might as well support it.) Actually, for that matter, we might want to get rid of that{{ucfirst:…}}entirely; I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to ensure that the link to w:Cloud must read "Cloud" instead of "cloud". - It seems like the leading
*should be in the entry code, not the template code. - I don't see why the template should close an existing unordered-list. If this is possible without breaking the sidebar-link support, it seems that the entire template should fit in a single list item. (If it's not possible without breaking that, then never mind; it's not a huge deal.)
—RuakhTALK 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason at all why the span has to be on a separate line and separated by a blank line. No idea why someone did that! Other things are all good. It is kinda nice that it tries to produce the correct uc title, but it should allow
{{pedialite|eBay|eBay}}to link and display properly. So using the 2nd parameter unmodified as you say is good, but I'd still uc it if it defaults to {1} or {PAGENAME} Robert Ullmann 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- O.K., thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Between your edit and mine, mostly fixed. Robert Ullmann 13:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wording change proposal
As this template is for External links, or See also sections, the wording is out of place. The fact that Wikipedia has an article is not the same as saying that more information can be found by clicking on the link.
I would like to change this template to one of the following:
instead of
So that the flow of meaning is more consistent. I have intentionally removed the link from Wikipedia, I don't think that is necessary anymore. I have also intentionally removed the quote marks, as the emboldening suffices to remove the literal meaning of the word. In both of the examples the words in brackets are intended to be removed for links to the English Wikipedia. Conrad.Irwin 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me; and, likewise with all the other {{PL:*}} templates. —RuakhTALK 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, but if we're not going to be linkifying the project names, maybe we should include their tag-lines, like:
Cat on (the Spanish) Wikipedia, the free (Spanish) encyclopedia.
styling
I would propose to style this template more like the R: templates, in particular {{R:American Heritage 2000}} and others. This would fit in better in reference sections. H. (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- See
{{R:W}}. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion debate
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
etc. are all redundant to {{wikipedia}}, {{wikiversity}}, {{wikisource}}, {{wikispecies}}. What should be done about these templates? TeleComNasSprVen 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all. One could just as well say that
{{wikipedia}}and so on are redundant to these. ;-) It's kind of funny: the nomination just above this one is trying to eliminate a box template on the grounds that it's bulky and redundant to a one-liner, and here you're trying to the reverse. Though in your defense, the interproject boxes and interproject one-liners are actually equivalent, or nearly so. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep. I might support deleting
{{wikipedia}}et al, however, because in combination with other right-hand side elements, they cause IE to display a great blank spot. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep all, per Internoob, I'd be more likely to support deleting wikipedia (etc.) as it's boxy and causes spacing problems. Up till now I think we've always considered to spacing problems to be offset by the value of the template. Still, I use
{{pedia}}not{{wikipedia}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep 'em, per the other keepers.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: These templates were never tagged with
{{rfd}}. I've now tagged them.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept all.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Optional italics
Could this be fitted with an optional "i" parameter so that italics could be specified for the taxonomic names that are supposed to appear in italics? The kinds of names are all virus names and all taxonomic names at the rank of genus and below. Special (manual for now) provision needs to be made for names that include "subsp.", "var.", "morph"/"morpha", "subg.", and similar.
The same need applies to {{specieslite}}, {{pedia}}/{{pedialite}}, {{commonslite}}, {{wikispecies}}, {{wikipedia}}, {{commons}}, and {{commonscat}}.
I could try to do this myself, but my template foo is weak, the template architecture is more complicated than I understand, and the templates are widely transcluded. I am doing this for various "reference" templates used for taxon names, which are both simpler in architecture and less widely transcluded. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
RFD discussion: November 2021–January 2022
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Its functionality has been taken over by {{wp}}. I do not like the redundancy caused by two different templates that are supposed to generate the same thing, as well as the unnecessary editwarring involved when attempting standardisation at the expense of the outdated template. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- No it hasn't, as a quick look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:projectlink/Wikipedia plainly shows. There are lots of people who prefer to have a text link to Wikipedia rather than a floating box (I'm not one of them, but I respect their choice). You have a bad habit of mistaking your opinion for consensus. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: Contrary to your thinking, I deem my ‘habit’ wholesome. I am not against the text link, but the formatting- according to which
{{pedia}}has to be put beneath ===Further reading===, a heading that is used only to list (non-inline) references; and WP cannot be used as reference. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)- @Inqilābī: Wrong. WT:Entry Layout § Further reading:
- The “Further reading” section contains simple recommendations of further places to look.
- WP ist just another "place to look", and not a reference. – Jberkel 20:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Inqilābī: Wrong. WT:Entry Layout § Further reading:
- @Chuck Entz: Contrary to your thinking, I deem my ‘habit’ wholesome. I am not against the text link, but the formatting- according to which
- Keep widely used template. Fight incipient revolutionary wikifascism. DCDuring (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I love this double standard: when people call me a ‘Fascist’ or ‘talibanesque’, it’s all right. And when I utter something, it’s unforgivable and blockworthy! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't called you a fascist (or "talibanesque"). You have branded yourself a revolutionary. The pipe you use concealing your user name asserts that you are a dictator. DCDuring (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- ‘Concealing’ one’s username is not an uncommon practice. And I have not called myself dictator victionarii. But you used the term fascism, which was not okay. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't called you a fascist (or "talibanesque"). You have branded yourself a revolutionary. The pipe you use concealing your user name asserts that you are a dictator. DCDuring (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, I love this double standard: when people call me a ‘Fascist’ or ‘talibanesque’, it’s all right. And when I utter something, it’s unforgivable and blockworthy! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
RFD-no consensus. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)