Template talk:WikipediaSister

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Protected Template:WikipediaSister has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents

[edit] Problems with Template:wikipediasister, do you see them too?

For some reason Template:wikipediasister doesn't want to include properly. On my browser (Galeon/Mozilla under Linux), I start seeing HTML markup inline after I save the page? Do you have the same problem? -Lexor|Talk 10:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I made the links direct. Did that help? --mav
Yep. Must be something weird in the namespace syntax when it parses it to HTML. Probably have to ask a developer like Brion or Tim Starling. Thanks for fixing this. I wonder if it's worth an extra MediaWiki for the intro paragraph as well for the three versions: standard, text-only and table-free? --Lexor|Talk 10:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So long as we want to have the wording be the same. --mav
Well at least a subset of the sentences should be, I would have thought, otherwise the pages could drift, in fact the text version doesn't match the standard right now. By the way, could you also replace the inline markup for the sister projects with the {{msg:wikipediasister}}? Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 11:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Done. --mav

[edit] Images

Do you think this would look better? It needs a bit more formatting/resixing:


Meta-Wiki
Coordination of all Wikimedia projects

Wiktionary
A multilingual dictionary and thesaurus

 Image:Wikibooks-logo-en.svg

Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals

 Image:Wikiquote-logo-en.png

Wikiquote
A collection of quotations

 Image:Wikisource-logo.png

Wikisource
Free source documents

Dmn?

Well it does look better, standalone. Does it look better on the main page too? Ankur
  • You bet it looks better! But, I'm afraid to say, it only looks about 10 times better! Really, these pictures would really lvien up the sister projects section! Great idea!

BTW: I thought that at a point they all used to have pictures? What lonely person had to take the life out of them?! --Exigentsky

[edit] Clickable images

Is there any way the images can be made clickable? (ie act as links?) Otherwise it would be annoying to click on the image, expecting to go to the site, when one goes to the Image: page instead. Dysprosia 01:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've asked about this before as well when the Main Page was first redesigned. It would be nice to have on anything on the main page really. RADICALBENDER★ 23:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. I mean, a lot of people coming to wikipedia are newcomers. They've spent there lifetime clicking on images that either enlarge or take them to another article. To a newcomer it obviously is a strange behaviour for an image to take the user to the attribution page even if the image does enlarge. On the main page it is expected that clicking on the image will take you to the article rather the Image:Xyz.png page. So definitely image on main page should take you to the article. This reminds me of the wikipedia logo - which takes you to the homepage of wikipedia instead of Image:WikipediaLogo.png or something of the sort. Now if there were a solution to the problem of wikipedians who will want to modify the image. --Ankur 02:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I put a redirect on the image page of the Meta image, the same can be done for the others. The only disadvantage is that it is now inconvenient to go to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Image:Metawiki.png&redirect=no .--Patrick 11:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it will, for places like Wikibooks or Wikiquote, which don't have the capability to link to the projects using conventional [[ ]] means (eg, you can't go wikibooks:Main page) Dysprosia 05:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The first three seem to do that but the last two do not. for me at least... --Rj 18:21, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


Three work (plus en: for going back), two do not:

m:Main Page wikiquote:Main Page wikisource:Main Page wiktionary:Main Page wikibooks:Main Page

--Patrick 15:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


It seems somebody's had the cunning idea of making them into interwiki redirects - something that I'm normally against, because you can't then get back to the redirecting page without handcrafting a URL, but which is probably forgiveable in this case as it's probably the only way of achieving the desired effect. The reason wikisource and wikiquote aren't like that is that they still haven't had interwiki prefixes set up for some reason. Anyone fancy bugging a developer to do it? - IMSoP 15:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, seems all the interwiki redirects work. Previously, the Wikibooks image took you to a multilanguage portal, which seemed rather illogical to me - this is the English Wikipedia, and the Wikibooks:Main Page links fine to those other languages should the user so desire, so I changed it to just go to the Main Page. --Twinxor 04:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usually, you would just be able to use the following coding to link to, say, Wiktionary, with an image...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Wiktionary-logo-en-35px.png
But apparently external images are disabled on Wikipedia... -Rainer

[edit] Wikitravel

I see that Wikitravel has just been added to this list. First of all, it looks kinda out of place, on its own row to the far right. Secondly, the line above the logos says that the Wikimedia Foundation operates these projects, which isn't true for Wikitravel: according to m:Wikitravel, the project is run by two Wikipedians, but it isn't an official Wikimedia project. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 20:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would include WikiAtlas links in Wikitravel.

[edit] Wikinews

Should a link to wikinews (sorry - I don't know the interwiki) be included? It's a WM project, right? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 06:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's still in beta, and it doesn't have a final logo, so it's probably too early for that. -- Netoholic @ 07:04, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
Google news is still in "beta" too, so thats a moot point. Plus Wikinews has been in the news already on several high profile sources, so people will be wondering where the link is. The newspaper logo will do for now. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 11:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

First of all this is a wikimedia project in its own right and the discussion is already under way in the "village well under miscelaneous." GerardM 16:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but I see that as you stating that you're going to do it and two people saying that it shouldn't be there". That's not a discussion. violet/riga (t) 16:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You discussed this in IRC #wikipedia and most views there opposed adding it. You went head anyway. You were reverted in the Christian-only Christmas season holiday template by one of the people who disagreed with you in IRC (me) and here by two people who I don't recall being around for the IRC discussion. I suggest that you look at the non-discriminatory "Happy Holidays" message sites like Google.com are using and try to understand that there are people having holidays and family gatherings now who aren't Christian and should receive wishes of happiness as well. Jamesday 17:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The thing is that this IS a project and this project IS centered around a phrase in the Italian wiktionary. It being a project is known for more than a month in both mailing list and in the projects. Its place for a few days in the WIKIPEDIASISTER page is correct. What we were talking about was on having it on the Main Page, it is not. GerardM 22:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The same arguments apply there as well: the project should not be discriminating against those who are not Christians but are having their family gatherings at this time. That's likely also the reasoning why sites like Google don't go for a Christian-specific holiday wish. It's possible to craft a suitable message but this isn't it. Jamesday 22:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your insistence on happy holidays is denying that there is a project about a phrase. It is unreasonable to insist that it should be "happy holidays" because that is that what this is about. GerardM 23:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copy/paste from WP:VP:

The whole thing is horribly unfriendly for newbies:
  1. It's not clear what the links are
  2. Red links are supposed to mean no article
  3. The layout is, to be blunt, rather dull
If it were tidied and these points dealt with then I could understand its inclusion. As it stands I've removed it for the time being. violet/riga (t) 16:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right, so your arguments have nothing to do with the points that I made. Your contributions are neither helpfull nor friendly and you have already reverted four times this template. So according to the rules you cite you should be banned for 24 hours.
That the thing is in green and red is, because these are Christmassy colours and therefore appropriate. The links to the first three are not articles, they are sound files. And the last is an OBVIOUS referral to elsewhere. It being dull is good as it needs no more attention than the attention it gets. GerardM
I do not understand why it is unfriendly. Perhaps you can discuss things..
Just because you do not like it you start a revert war. You do not adress the arguments why this information is indeed in its right place. The arguments that you use have nothing to do with the project itself. To top it all you say that I need to be banned (hardly friendly) while you were the one to revert three times first. GerardM 08:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've protected the template. As it's no longer Christmas in most of the world, I've reverted to the non-Template:ChristmasWish version. I'd be within my rights to block GerardM for violating the 3RR, but I'm feeling generous. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is the second day of Christmas, in the Western Christian tradition it is generally celebrated as a holy day. So there you are wrong. Secondly, the revert war started NOT with me, I was not the one to have done the third revert therefore it is not me you could have banned "within your rights". Thirdly, the arguments I put forward have not been adressed by the "other party" or you at all so there is another mark against your action. GerardM 08:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dori reverted it to start with, not me - you were the first to break the 3RR. You did so without discussion either here or at the stated Village Pump. My points are still totally valid and using Christmas colours as a defence doesn't work when you are breaking the style rules - those Christmas colours could've been worked into it in a different way. My reference to it being dull is that it takes up a large part of screen real estate but with very little content. Further I'd already said that I had no particular problem with it being there but that my other points needed to be addressed before I saw it as acceptable. Sorry that your obvious good intentions have been reverted this way but with more discussion it could've worked out. violet/riga (t) 11:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My count says you hit 5 reverts in 24 hours, GerardM. Actually, violetriga was in violation too, but I miscounted low on the both of you. I came here to unprotect it, but from your comments it looks like you plan to just resume reverting. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text aligment

I'm adding style="text-align:left" to the table to prevent the words from being too far from each other. I do this because it took me some time to figure out that the 'of' right before the Wikisource icon didn't have anything to do with Wikisource but was part of the Wikiquote description. — mark ✎ 16:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes not specified

I propose to add |35px to the various images in this template. In general it's good practice to specify the image size, in case someone uploads a higher-resolution version. Also, note that the images should be protected, as they appear on the main page. dbenbenn | talk 00:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No objections. We should point to the highest resolution file, rather than the fixed-size thumbnails currently used, though. -- Netoholic @ 01:10, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
In every case I checked, the higher-resolution version is at the Commons. We can't protect images from the Commons. (Even if they're protected there, we don't control that.) Possibly the right thing to do is to use a protected copy of the high-resolution version here. dbenbenn | talk 02:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably a good plan. -- Netoholic @ 03:16, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
One need only create the image description page (pasted content from Commons is OK) and protect it - then no-one but administrators can upload over it. — Dan | Talk 05:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No one but administrators and users at the Commons, that is. Possibly that's good enough. dbenbenn | talk 06:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done. I've uploaded local copies of the Commons images, just out of paranoia. dbenbenn | talk 04:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The images used were specially-compressed 35px images, which saved several KB from the Main Page size (which I've reverted back to). They could be protected in Commons or copied locally to Wikipedia and protected here. Tom- 01:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Uploaded them here and protected. Tom- 01:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I unprotected and deleted the non-thumbnail versions, that aren't used here any more. I re-added "|35px" to all the images. That way, the template doesn't break if for whatever reason someone makes the images wider. I'm paranoid. dbenbenn | talk 20:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the savings at the moment is 12974 bytes. But note that the specially-compressed versions don't look quite the same; the space savings comes from discarding a lot of colors. dbenbenn | talk 16:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

some interwiki: cs:Template:Wikipediasister de:Template:Hauptseite Schwesterprojekte es:Template:Proyectoswikimedia it:Template:PaginaPrincipale/Progetti sk:Template:WikipediaSister

Done – Gurch 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please change come logos

is there anyone who can replace some of this logos by logos from the commons? the text should be:

<!-- IF YOU VANDALIZE THIS TEMPLATE YOU WILL BE **BLOCKED** IMMEDIATELY AND CAST INTO A BOTTOMLESS PIT. -->
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia hosted by the non-profit [[Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]], which operates several other  [[Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination|multilingual]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|free-content]] projects:
{| align="center" cellpadding="2" width="100%" style="text-align:left"
| [[Image:Wiktionary-logo-en-35px.png|35px|<nowiki>]]
| [[wikt:en:Main Page|'''Wiktionary''']]<br />Dictionary and thesaurus
| [[Image:Wikibooks without text-35px.png|35px|]]
| [[b:en:Main Page|'''Wikibooks''']]<br />Free textbooks and manuals
| [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.png|35px|]]
| [[q:en:Main Page|'''Wikiquote''']]<br />Collection of quotations
| [[Image:Wikisource-logo.png|35px|]]
| [[wikisource:Main Page:English|'''Wikisource''']]<br />Free source documents
|-
| [[Image:Wikispecies without text-35px.png|35px|]]
| [[Wikispecies:|'''Wikispecies''']]<br />Directory of species
| [[Image:Wikinews-logo.png|35px|]]
| [[n:Main Page|'''Wikinews''']]<br />Free content news source
| [[Image:Commons without text-35px.png|35px|]]
| [[commons:Main Page|'''Commons''']]<br />Shared media repository
| [[Image:Wikimedia without text-35px.png|35px|]]
| [[m:Main Page|'''Meta-Wiki''']]<br />Wikimedia project coordination
|}
</nowiki>

Schaengel89 @me 14:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See Template:WikipediaSister/temp for proposing changes. The changes are
  1. Image:Wikiquote without text-35px.png -> Image:Wikiquote-logo.png
  2. Image:Wikisource-logo-35px.jpg -> Image:Wikisource-logo.png
  3. Image:Wikinews-logo-textless.png -> Image:Wikinews-logo.png
As long as we have to keep local copies of the logos for protection anyway, I think we should name them differently. For example, "Wikinews-logo-PROTECTED.png", instead of simply "Wikinews-logo.png". That way, you can leave "Wikinews-logo.png", which is used by a lot of pages, unprotected. dbenbenn | talk 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller

/smaller - experimentation for use as footer. SV|t 05:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adapting to narrow screen

In an attempt to make this template adapt better to narrow screens, I have made some changes at Template:WikipediaSister/temp. Instead of using a single table (which extends past the right hand margin if you make your browser window narrow enough), I use several smaller tables, where each smaller table has CSS properties that allow it to float. On wide screens, both my new design and the old design look the same. In browsers that understand CSS "width" but do not understand CSS "min-width", both designs look similar at all screen sizes. On narrow screens (provided the browser understands CSS "min-width"), my design will change the number of sister projects per row, so we move from

 Wiktionary   Wikibooks  Wikiquote  Wikisource
 Wikispecies  Wikinews   Commons    Meta-Wiki

to

 Wiktionary   Wikibooks    Wikiquote
 Wikisource   Wikispecies  Wikinews
 Commons      Meta-Wiki

and then

 Wiktionary   Wikibooks
 Wikiquote    Wikisource
 Wikispecies  Wikinews
 Commons      Meta-Wiki

and finally (on really narrow screens) just a single column. Does my version at Template:WikipediaSister/temp work at least as well as the current version for everybody? —AlanBarrett 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice idea. However, in my configuration (Firefox, monobook, width of browser window is 1016), Template:WikipediaSister/temp uses three columns, even though Template:WikipediaSister (with four columns) fits fine. Furthermore, Template:WikipediaSister/temp is justified, so there is a very large space between the words "Dictionary" and "and" in the line under "Wiktionary". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I see the same three-column behaviour in Firefox, but not the same justification problem. Using the DOM inspector, I see that Firefox is using widths that are a fraction of a pixel too wide, so changing the "25%" to "24.9%" will fix that. Strangely, I used exactly the same technique with width:25% for http://www.wikipedia.org/, and Firefox doesn't have the same problem there. Does it work better after my recent changes? —AlanBarrett 14:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"width:24.9%" worked fine in Firefox, but Opera trated it like "width:24%". I am now trying "width:25.0%", which seems to work in both Opera and Firefox. I'd appreciate reports from users of other browsers. —AlanBarrett 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I still see only three columns, but the text is no longer justified (I just checked my preferences and saw that I had Justify paragraphs set; this may have cause the justification problem). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please try going back in the history of Template:WikipediaSister/temp to view the version that had "width:24.9%". —AlanBarrett 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The version with "width:24.9%" is indeed displayed in four columns. By the way, how did you find out the width in pixels being used by Firefox? I have the DOM Inspector extension (version 1.0), but I can't see where to find this information. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Inside the DOM Inspector, select the item you want in the left hand pane (e.g. a particular DIV or TABLE or whatever). Then click the icon in the the top left hand corner of the right hand pane, and select "Computed CSS Style". Scroll down to "width". —AlanBarrett 18:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice, I never noticed that icon. With "width:25.0%", the TABLEs have computed width 205px, and the DIV containing the 8 tables has computed width 817.412px. On the other hand, with "width:24.9%", the TABLEs have computed width 204px. By the way, I'm using Firefox 1.0.4. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have Firefox-1.0.6. The behaviour seems inconsistent; sometimes it rounds computed widths to integer numbers of pixels, and sometimes not. Anyway, "width:24.9%" seems to be working for now, so let's wait for comments from users of other browsers. Thanks for your testing and comments. —AlanBarrett 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Are these problems life threatening, or is this concept going to work on all browsers? I would like to be able to use this system to make the Community portal fixup show well on any screen. See User:Trevor macinnis/sandbox/community portal fixup. This looks too on my system, at any resolution. Using Firefox 1.0.7 on XP. -- Ec5618 18:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Directly link to project pages

The Dutch and Vietnamese Wikipedias have each developed (slightly different) templates that will take an image and link it directly to a wikilinkable page (rather than the image's description page), using some clever CSS positioning. Even though the images in this template redirect to the projects' Main Pages, it would be less confusing to users if the URL of the link actually reflected where the image eventually leads the user.

If you're thinking of using the Vietnamese version of the template, note that everything within the noinclude tag will not be transcluded, and that this version requires four parameters:

  • hình: the image's filename, without the namespace prefix
  • ngang: width of the image
  • cao: height of the image
  • liên kết: the destination page's name; a URL won't work, but you can still use the interwiki syntax

The Dutch version assumes a square image, so it only requires three parameters.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 09:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Directly link to project pages

Now that Template:Click has been set up, making the project logos link directly to the projects is much easier. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That was me, although I basically stole from the Dutch and Vietnamese versions, thanks a lot for your help. Although I have every confidence in those versions, I had to make a few changes myself and I'm still a relative newbie to this sort of stuff. So there's a test version at Template:WikipediaSister/temp, if people could check it out with different browsers and the like before putting it on the main page proper. the wub "?!" 11:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I love the new use of {{click}}. Just to make life easier, the images used in this template are Image:Wiktionary-logo-en-35px.png, Image:Wikibooks-logo-PROTECTED.png, Image:Wikiquote without text-35px.png, Image:Wikisource-logo-PROTECTED.jpg, Image:WikispeciesZS-protected.jpg, Image:Wikinews-logo-textless.png, Image:Commons without text-35px.png, Image:Wikimedia without text-35px.png. dbenbenn | talk 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Liên quan Wikipedia]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Wikibooks logo

The logo for wikibooks does not appear in the template. Please could an administrator fix the template to include the logo. --Jorvik 09:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

Hello! Admins, please change Wikisource to "The Free Library" (sister to "The free encyclopedia":-).

This has been adopted as the multilingual slogan of Wikisource, as you can see here: wikisource:.

Thanks!Dovi 11:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Done, except that I used "The free library", so that capitalization is consistent across entries. Let me know if you disagree. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this... first of all, it's kind of ambiguous, because Wikibooks could also be viewed as a "free library" (of textbooks). Wikisource doesn't contain all kinds of published works, after all. Secondly, the other projects don't have their slogans listed next to their logos here: Wiktionary has "Dictionary and thesaurus" listed next to it, for example, not "The free dictionary." – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 09:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wikisource doesn't contain all kinds of published works, after all." Since this has come up again, a brief reply: Wrong! Wikisource does contain all kinds of published works (except for copyright restrictions). It is indeed a free and open library. Wikibooks is not, nor does it claim to be. It is not meant to contain published works.
As for Wiktionary - yes, "The free dictionary" is indeed a lot nicer, since these links are meant to promote the sister projects. Though it would of course be a good idea to ask them first at Wiktionary. Dovi 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that, unlike your typical public library (at least in the US), Wikisource doesn't contain any uncopyrighted text. According to OldWikisource:Wikisource:Policies and guidelines, "there may be unspoken guidelines, such as the necessity of a text to be notable." So you probably won't find any old dime novel at Wikisource, whereas you might find some at a good public library. Though that may be my bias; I grew up within driving distance of PLCH, which did have such extensive collections. I realize that Wikibooks is even less likely to include things like dime novels, but then Wikibooks could be likened to a school library, in which case it does fit the bill pretty well. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyright: So what? Unlike your typical encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn't contain any text with copyright restrictions. And yet we all still agree to call it "The free encyclopedia." What's the difference? Why not "The free library"?
In my assessment, "the free encyclopedia" is a considerably less ambiguous term than "the free library" (because the word "library" has a much broader range of connotations than the word "encyclopedia"). If you disagree, feel free to discuss changing Wikisource's description of Wikipedia to something that you deem more appropriate. —David Levy 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That is your assessment. Bottom line, both words can be used in a variety of contexts; no short word or slogan is ever perfect. At Wikisource, Birgitte already suggested (and as far as I know everyone agrees except maybe Thomas) that we not to a petty tit-for-tat with Wikipedia on this. "The free encyclopedia" is a great slogan, and we keep it because it is what Wikipedia has chosen (and after all we are Wikipedians too). Just because one David Levy has suggested several times that we may do it, we are not going to disregard the consensus of tens of thousands of Wikipedians. But we continue to expect that the courtesy will be returned. Dovi 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that you engage in "petty tit-for-tat." I'm saying that if you truly believe that another description would be better, go ahead and discuss its implementation. "The free encyclopedia" is backed by consensus as our official slogan, but I don't believe that it's ever been established as our official sister project template description. The two designations are not synonymous, and the fact that the slogan of one project (out of nine) has long been used in the latter capacity does not automatically mean that this always is a good idea. Wikipedia places content on our main page as a courtesy to readers, and Wikisource should do the same. —David Levy 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"Dime novels": There is apparently a misunderstanding about this (also keep in mind that English policy pages from "oldwikisource" are no longer relevant now that en.wikisource has been set up). If Wikisource has any notability requirement, it is simply that a book must be "good" enough to have been previously published in some fashion. If it has been published, and it is public domain or the author/publisher grants license permission, it is always clearly welcome at Wikisource. Cheap literature from 19th and early 20th century is entirely welcome. Cheap published contemporary literature is also welcome if license permission is granted. Nearly anything that belongs on the shelves of a brick-and-mortar library also belongs on the "shelves" of Wikisource. Please upload all your "dime novels"!
Wikibooks: No school library currently collects the wiki-produced textbooks and study guides held at Wikibooks. Wikibooks defines itself not as a simple collection of such texts, but as a collection where anyone can edit them, i.e. a project to write and produce them. A finished and published textbook or study guide that might be found in a typical school library doesn't go to Wikibooks, it goes to Wikisource. (In fact, it is entirely possible that Wikisource might someday host permanent frozen versions of Wikibooks textbooks and study guides that have undergone peer-review; it would be a great form of collaboration between the two projects.) Now, could Wikibooks or Wikiquote nevertheless still be called "A library of How-To information" or "A library of quotations" as some have recently suggested? Yes. But they could just as easily be called "An encyclopedia of how-to" or "An encyclopedia of of quotations." The point is, though both "library" and "encyclopedia" may be used in some secondary ways, the basic, primary brick-and-mortar meaning of "library" is exactly the model intended in "The free library".
No one expects an encyclopedia to contain somone else's copyrighted content (at least, not to any great extent). People certainly expect that of libraries. To most people, "the free library" is likely to be interpreted as "the no-cost library." The phrase "Free-content libraray" is far less ambiguous. In fact, I suggest that you seriously consider changing your official slogan to "The Free-content Library." It might not sound quite as catchy, but it's much less confusing.
A regular encyclopedia presents signed articles written by a huge variety of scholars. These are copyrighted by their very nature, and the encyclopedia pays the authors for submitting their work to be published in the encyclopedia and for the rights to be transferred. The fact that Wikipedia articles belong free to the public from scratch is one thing that detracts from their worthiness in the eyes of some critics (though most of us here surely disagree with those critics). Dovi 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The goal of Wikisource is quite emphatically to include everything that may be found at a "good public library" (without getting sued). The brick-and-mortar library (everything from your local town library or school library to a large university library) is the primary model for "library" in "The free library". In my opinion, there is no problem discussing this, analyzing it, critiquing it, etc. as much as people want to. But the discussion should be held at Wikisource, and the decision made there should be respected elsewhere. Dovi 07:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You previously expressed agreement with BirgitteSB that the sister project descriptions should be discussed and standardized via the Wikimedia Foundation. Now you're back to arguing that what Wikisource says goes. —David Levy 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course I agree that should be done, and not just for Wikisource alone. Myabe next week Wikibooks will come up with a better phrase and the admins who work on the Wikipedia main page will refuse to use it. But doing that will take some very major effort and time by somebody, and will probably not happen for a good long time. In the meantime, this remains unresolved. Yes, I'm still "arguing" the obvious point that projects should respect each others logos/slogans/descriptions in Sister-project templates unless there is a very strong, clear, good reason not to. Dovi 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
All of your arguments are based upon the assumption that the projects' slogans automatically belong in the sister project templates. What gives you that idea? —David Levy 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying. But the problem is that readers will see the little "library" tagline and think that you will see not only cheap, obscure books from a hundred years ago, but also things like current bestsellers. Call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia" and the visitor won't automatically think that we host copyrighted content, but call Wikisource a "library" and that's precisely what they might look for.
That is a reason why it can't be called a library? Because people can't find recent copyrighted paperbacks? For heaven's sake! Thousands of people visit Wikipedia every day expecting to find signed, peer-reviewed-by-experts, all-rights-reserved articles just like in Britannica. And when they do not find such articles, thousands of people have and continue to criticize Wikipedia for not being a real encyclopedia, for precisely that reason! On the contrary, the texts at Wikisource are real published texts, we don't write them ourselves. The only things we don't hold are those we could get sued for. Just like a regular library doesn't hold books for which it doesn't have the funds to pay by just copying & binding them.Dovi 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I suppose that calling Wikisource a "free collection of source texts" just fuels the misconception that I had, that a work had to be notable to get included at (the English) Wikisource. So I guess we need to come up with something else. I just don't think that Wikisource really fits an ordinary visitor's conception of a library, even if it could someday have the same scope.
At the Vietnamese Wikipedia, where I'm a sysop, we constantly have the issue of users thinking that we also include dictdefs. It so happens that a common Vietnamese word for encyclopedia, từ điển bách khoa (lit: "encyclopedic dictionary"), is very similar to the word for dictionary, từ điển, and many people view these two words as synonyms. We use the less common bách khoa toàn thư to differentiate ourselves from a dictionary, but new users will still create lots of dictdefs, because they come to Wikipedia with the conception that it is a dictionary; most of our press coverage and most of our mentions in forums etc. describe us as a từ điển bách khoa. To me, calling Wikisource a "library" has the same consequences as calling Wikipedia a từ điển bách khoa: while technically correct, the description will lend to misconceptions about the project.
For goodness sake, what misconceptions? Whatever they are, why can't good policy pages clear it up, especially now that we have extremely good ones at Wikisource? Well, at least we now agree that it is technically correct. I wonder if David Levy will agree too? His concern was accuracy. Dovi 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You've quoted me in an out-of-context fashion. My "accuracy" concern pertained to the suggestion that the phrase "The free-content library" be used (which would have incorrectly implied that this was the official slogan of Wikisource). My objection to "The free library" (shared by others) pertains to its ambiguity.
What you perceive as its ambiguity. The place to resolve that is at Wikisource. You're invited. Dovi 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the only person to perceive this ambiguity. Several other people (including one of your administrators) agree. And again, I fail to understand why Wikisource is the place to determine the content of our main page. —David Levy 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The current description ("Free-content library") clearly is every bit as accurate as "The free library" (as noted by BirgitteSB on your Scriptorium page) and it's considerably more informative (for the reason explained above). I can only conclude that your continued insistence that the official slogan be used stems from pride. ("We're the free library, and we deserve to be called that!") Again, we don't include slogans for any of the other sister projects, and I don't see why Wikisource should be treated differently (at the expense of our readers). —David Levy 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"Free content library" is an improvement (at least "free" and "library" are in there). It is not considerably more informative (would "Free content encyclopedia" be significantly more informative?), nor is anyone suggesting anything at the "expense" of Wikipedia readers. Again, Wikipedia's slogan is presented on all Sister projects templates. Whether the idea that it should simply be the actual slogan is (1) "pride" or (2) a simple assumption that Wikipedia should respect the Wikisource slogan just as the reverse is true. Dovi 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
1. I've already explained why "free-content" is much less ambiguous than "free." 2. Yes, "Free-content encyclopedia" would be more informative than "The free encyclopedia." 3. No one is disrespecting the Wikisource slogan. Again, your assumption that it belongs on the sister project templates by default (and that the failure to include it is an affront) simply isn't valid. —David Levy 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As for Wikibooks, I now see why it shouldn't be described as a "library". Your explanation should be more prominent, though, because it really serves to clarify the distinction between the two projects.
This whole discussion has convinced me that at Wikisource we need to open a page called s:Wikisource:The free library. I'll put it there... Dovi 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for carrying on the discussion here, rather than at Wikisource, but it is still on-topic for Wikipedia's sister projects template. Some of my misunderstandings about Wikisource, by the way, are probably because I haven't really paid attention to the project for many months, even though I'm an administrator there. Shame on me...
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that is exactly my concern. What difference does discussion on Wikisource even make if we come back to Wikipedia and people who never discussed it on Wikisource start the conversation all over again from the beginning? Dovi 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position on this (since it was brought up). I cannot understand why the readers of Wikipedia-The free enclycopedia would see any ambiguity in Wikisource-The free library. The readers of Wikipedia being the least-informed possible audience. Here is summary of the different reasons given:

  • The free library” is inaccurate
This opinion is misinformed. Wikisource is what one would expect from a library. I disagree that anyone would expect to find a current best seller on the internet for free. The agreement to Free-content library seems to concede this point.
As I just explained, no claim has been made that "The free library" is inaccurate. The problem is that it's ambiguous. The word "free" can be interpreted as "having no monetary expense." While that's true, it doesn't convey the nature of the available material. "Free-content" does. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't include slogans for any of the other sister projects
I don’t understand the relevence of this objection. No other sister projects has asked you to include a slogan. It is not as though this objection refers to a set precendent or previous discussion.
You misunderstood my point. I'm not suggesting that we can't or shouldn't ever use a project's slogan. I'm refuting the implication that it's standard procedure to do so (and we're unfairly discriminating against Wikisource). —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "the free library" is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't convey any sort of distinction between Wikisource and Wikibooks (which also could be referred to as a "free library").
This opinion is mis-informed. Wikibooks could not described as a free library, as people who contribute at Wikibooks have already explained. Wikibooks produces textbooks, Wikisource collects a variety of soure material. Is not the goal of Wikisoure’s decription to describe how Wikibooks is different, but to describe Wikisource. The agreement to Free-content library seems to concede this point.
I don't see how. The problem with "The free library" is that it fails to convey the nature of the content therein. "Free-content library" can only mean "a library containing free content." Someone familiar with Wikibooks (which many of our readers are not) might not be likely to refer to it as a library, but it is a library of sorts. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ”The free library” doesn’t specify what kind of library Wikisource is and readers can’t be left to guess. (Amibiguity)
I disagree that readers on seeing word library would then wonder “Well what kind of library?” I simply believe it false that readers don’t commonly know what a library is without further description. The agreement to Free-content library seems to concede this point to a degree. I believe the readers of "The free encyclopedia" do not need to have free further specified for them.
1. People often refer to their neighborhoods' public libraries simply as "libraries," but that doesn't mean that we should adopt this as the only definition of the word. Keep in mind that many readers of the English Wikipedia (and Wikisource, for that matter) do not speak English as a primary language. Specificity can be very helpful. 2. I'm willing to bet that most of our readers interpret "the free encyclopedia" as "the encyclopedia that I can use without paying money." Again, this is less of an issue, because people don't expect to find other entities' copyrighted content in an encyclopedia. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A consensus amoung those who contribute at Wikisource doesn’t count as a consensus for this because they aren't a valid cross-sampling of the Wikipedia community as a whole.
This really isn’t an objection to “the free library”, but rather a reason to invalidate a large number of voices supporting “the free library”. First of all in practice consensus is always achieved amoung those are most interested in the result. When Wikipedia starts drawing names at random to achieve a vaild cross-sampling of the community in order to properly make a “real” consensus, then this argument will hold more weight with me. Personally I find this attitude disrespectful.
No disrespect or invalidation is intended. Dovi has repeatedly recruited Wikisource users to join the discussion, and this obviously has skewed the input. This decision affects our readers more than yours, so we must attempt to gauge the consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole. That doesn't mean that your opinions should be disregarded; it means that we must be mindful of their inherent bias. That isn't an insult, and I wouldn't expect a consensus transplanted from Wikipedia to hold a great deal of weight at Wikisource. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say I strongly disagree with idea "our readers" and "your inherent bias". Our goals in this are one in the same.
Your perspective is not that of a typical Wikipedia reader. You know Wikisource up and down, and this message is geared toward people who are largely unfamiliar with the site. —David Levy
I see no problem in transplanting consensus either.
I'm referring to consensus regarding the text that appears on our main page. I don't expect other projects (including yours) to allow Wikipedia to dictate the content of their main pages. —David Levy 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you truly get a varied group from different countries to come to agreement, that agreement is unlikely to be overturned by a seperate group equally varied.
No one is attempting to "overturn" your slogan selection. It simply doesn't automatically correspond to the selection of our description of your project. —David Levy 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As to bias; the people who work at Wikisource are simply better informed as to what Wikisource is.
Yes, you are. As such, you aren't in as good a position to place yourselves in the proverbial shoes of someone who's never even heard of Wikisource. To you, "the free library" seems entirely unambiguous, but that's because you don't need someone to explain to you what Wikisource is. —David Levy 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Truthfully Wikipedia consensus does hold weight at Wikisource. Not because it is from Wikipedia, but because if a variety of people can reach consensus it is for a good reason. I often look for a Wikipedia consensus when trying to decide naming conventions for different authors.
It's one thing to adopt someone else's consensus as your own (because it makes sense to you), and quite another thing to be told that you must accept someone else's consensus (no discussion, no questions asked). The English Wikipedia frequently copies ideas from other Wikipedias and from sister projects, and they copy some of our ideas. The sites don't force one another to comply with their respective practices, and a great deal of variety exists in many areas. —David Levy 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You know I feel the outcome here is a forgone conclusion, I just wanted to clarify the approach that I feel should be taken in this. I trully hope nothing like this comes up in the future amoung any sister projects. However, I feel the most concern about this idea of "we" are deciding this, don't recruit "your" people, etc. It sets a bad precedent--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Dovi has plainly stated that this was Wikisource's decision to make (and we shouldn't even be discussing it here). I'm sorry, but this is our main page. —David Levy 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That all being said my remarks at the Scriptorium were made due to the fact I believe myself to be a pragmatist. I would prefer to leave things on a good note with Free-content library, than on a bad note with Free-content library. This is because in any case I do not believe the opposition will relent to allow The free library. Also the disscussion had become contentious enough at that point, I did not believe anyone new would dare join in unless they cared greatly about the outcome (And those people would most likely be from Wikisource and thus invalid in the opposition’s eyes).
Again, no one has stated that your opinions are invalid. We simply can't assume that they reflect those of Wikipedians in general. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Free-content library is accurate and not misleading as I believed previous wording was. With that achieved, I believe harmony and cooperation between the sister projects is more important than arguing for further concessions which would never be granted.
However it must be understood how frustrated it must be to see something achieve such overwhelming support amoung a great variety of people from all different language domains and to have that negated because these people aren’t part of the right group. It is easy to see how these people might feel disrespected by some of comments made during this disscussion. The people who work at Wikisource are used to achieving consensus amoung a large variety of people (Issues are regularly discussed internationally and inovations shared amoung the different language domains). They are used to consensus being respected and that is what this is about more than pride. I can take the disrespect shown to Wikisource and turn the other cheek out of desire to leave no lingering bitterness towards Wikisource for future cooperation. Let me clarify I do this for self-serving reasons, not because I think turning the other cheek makes me any better of a person than those who don’t. As I said I am pragmatist, Wikipedia is in the posistion of strength here. Wikipedia has a great number more contributors and visitors than Wikisource. Wikisource will probably want something from Wikipedia in the future and I think is best not to be remembered with animosity. Wikisource will always be the supplicant, and supplicants are regularly refused on whims. In my opinion it should not reflect ill on anyone, just because they wish to continue this even though I believe the outcome is unlikely to change. As to my e-mail to the foundation list, I think it would be a good idea to standardize this on meta. Mainly to prevent any future animosity between any of the sister projects. However it is less than 50/50 if that will ever happen and it would be a matter of months even then. That is my view on the situation, sorry it is so long.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry that you view the situation in this light. We're simply trying to describe your project in the manner that best conveys its nature to our readers. We aren't trying to take your slogan away from you or imply that your project is inferior or unworthy of respect. —David Levy 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
A small but revealing trivia point regarding Birgitte's comments about Wikibooks. Take a look at the sister-template on the Spanish Wikipedia: While Wikisource is "La biblioteca libre" ("The free library"), Wikibooks is "La editorial libre" which translates "The free publishing house." Now that is an exact disctinction (one project collects works, one writes them). What it fails to indicate, of course, is what kinds of books Wikibooks publishes (it publishes only textbooks and study guides). But again, no short phrase is ever perfect, and "The free library" does a great deal better.
Wiktionary, by the way, is "El diccionario libre" ("The free dictionary"). In any event, it is important to keep in mind that the English Wikipedia is part of a larger whole, one that includes many projects in many languages. An awareness of this should be reflected —This unsigned comment was added by Dovi (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Ack! I've been basically away from the computer for a couple days, and someone's gone and put this discussion through a high-powered blender! :^) Before I respond to as many points as I can remember, please keep in mind that I was suggesting this change mainly for consistency's sake, and also because I felt calling "Wikisource" seemed likely to produce misconceptions about Wikisource. I was not aiming to belittle the consensus already reached at Wikisource; I just wanted to offer some thoughts on an obscure Talk page. And please respond below my comment; it makes it much easier for others to contribute to this discussion without having to run this page through a parser of some sort.

To me, Wikisource's description (perhaps as opposed to slogan) has to be more complex than that of Wikipedia or Wiktionary, because encyclopedias and dictionaries are more or less household items. A library is not; nor is a brick-and-mortar publishing house. I thought "The Free Library" was a great, catchy slogan for Wikisource when I first saw it, and it really fit in well with that "Carl Spitzweg" image on the English Wikisource front page. But, being familiar with the Wikisource from before it split into language editions, this slogan struck me as a real oversimplification. Sure, a reader may stumble into Wikisource and decide to look for Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, which is what they'll find. But another reader may indeed look for the latest bestseller. Generally speaking, they won't find it there.

The average person's expectations of an "electronic library" will probably depend on their experiences with a brick-and-mortar library. Some of the latter kind will offer current books like the latest bestsellers (PLCH, the Cincinnati library, does), and some won't. But not everyone will even know if their local public library contains this year's bestsellers. Furthermore, a parent may stumble upon Wikisource looking for Dr. Seuss books to read to their child. Maybe the public library's closed on Sundays. Popular children's books are something that a half-decent public library in North America (and probably elsewhere) is bound to have. Well, there'll be a listing of his works at Wikisource, and maybe after clicking on a few dozen red links, they'll find a copyright-infringing, poorly-formatted copy of "The Lorax". Their reaction? "How disappointing." Maybe this parent was going to look for Dostoevsky or something afterwards, but upon seeing their first query result in something like this mess, they could give up on the project entirely.

Such a scenario could be avoided by making an effort to describe Wikisource more accurately. See, Wiktionary might have people come in expecting an OED or Webster's or Roget's, but what they'll get instead isn't likely as disappointing as what they'll find by visiting Wikisource in search of a popular kid's book. Searching for hospital might not yield the most eloquent, most comprehensive definition of the word, but you'll get a basic definition, and if you're interested, a translation into Swahili as well.

But that comes back to my argument about encyclopedias and dictionaries being household items. People generally know what they contain, and what to expect from them. People will expect any half-decent dictionary to contain a definition for "hospital", but they might not expect a definition for "The Brothers Karamazov". So some people will be disappointed or irritated that Wikipedia isn't written by scholars, but they'll probably still get some information on what they're looking for. On the other hand, the parent searching for Dr. Seuss won't find anything other than a list of titles and a link to an encylopedia entry.

Regarding policy pages to prevent dictdefs: the Vietnamese Wikipedia does have a policy page on this. You can get to it from the standard new user welcome template, and from the page automatically presented to new users. It doesn't matter. People have already formed ideas about what certain things should have and what certain things should look like. It takes a lot to unlearn those ideas, and by then we've already got a few dozen dictdefs.

Again, these are suggestions to reduce confusion, in my opinion only and provided "AS IS" for your amusement. I am not trying to strongarm the entire Wikisource project into abandoning their slogan; in no way am I trying to "disrespect" Wikisource in any way, and I believe that David Levy is participating in this discussion in good faith. I shouldn't have to say that.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource II

The Wikisource link in this template may now be changed to s:. The Main Page currently linked to now longer functions, and is a sort redirect.Dovi 07:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource links

Once again, please replace Wikisource slogan with "The Free Library" as pointed out here.

The layout for the code copied from the new Main Page appears sloppy in Firefox. In my opinion, the previous code should have been kept. I don't think when people were voting on the page, they thought much about this template, or even realized that anything about it was changed. Plus the discussion (link above) does not seem to have been taken into account at all.

The proper way to have done this would have been to have transcluded the template into the proposed Main Page, and dealt with any updates to it on a local (template) level. By simply copying outdated code into the proposed main page, the result was a degraded template. Dovi 08:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for not replying to the aforementioned discussion. The redesign project was consuming literately all of my free time (and then some), so I forced myself to stay away from that page until the election concluded.
I disagree with the idea of including the slogan (instead of the description "Free-content source texts," which is based upon wording from the Wikisource main page). We don't list slogans for any of the other sister projects, and descriptions are more useful in this context. ("The free library" could just as easily be applied to Wikibooks.) We certainly should include whichever text is backed by consensus, so please feel free to raise this issue at Talk:Main Page.
FYI, the text/coding that appeared in the draft was not outdated; "The free library" was deliberately changed to "Free-content source texts" as part of the proposed redesign, and the coding was changed to address a display bug of some sort. I use Firefox, and I'm not seeing the problem that you've cited. (If possible, please upload a screen capture.) —David Levy 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The slogan is a Wikisource decision, as is the logo that appears in the template. (The logo currently happens to be undergoing intense discussion at Wikisource. If and when Wikisouce changes it, it will change on the Main Page here too). Wikibooks is in no way an open library, nor does it claim to be. Wikipedia is listed as "The free encyclopedia" in "sister-links" from all the other projects, and I would expect the same courtesy here. Perhaps, however, we will change our Wikipedia link to something more descriptive and attractive, like "Wikipedia - Open-source articles..." Dovi 09:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see my replies on Dovi'a talk page. —David Levy 14:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"The free library" is actually a better description than "free-content source texts". Wikisource:Astronomical events is an example of something that is not a source text, but which you can find in a free library. I support changing the description of Wikisource on this temlpate to the free library. --Kernigh 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone clear up my questions:Who is actually preventing the change (back) to the description of "The free library"?

On what authority? Wikisource and its slogan/descriptive phrase is a wikisource responsibility. Those who participate on it have decided, in all the language sub-domains, to go with "The free library" as their description of that project - why do you think you know better than those who regularly work & participate there? Frankly having read the discussions above the sole reason for not using wikisource's own approved description/slogan is a rather irrelevant & pedantic semantic argument over what constitutes a library & what people would expect to find there. Isn't this a rather minor & pointless reason to be creating all this fuss & going against established usage. AllanHainey 12:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) AllanHainey 12:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikisource really a wiki?

Sorry to bring something else up with the discussion on Wikisource, but after reading the descriptions of what it is, especially the ones referring to it having "frozen" versions of Wikibooks, I realised that the big, major distinction between Wikisource and the other projects is that it effectively just copies existing works. There is, rather obviously, no rewriting of the source texts or writing of new text. Which got me wondering why it calls itself a wiki. I suppose that rather than anyone editing wikisource, anyone is free to add text to it. Though not having visited it in a while, I'm not sure how the verification processes work. Wikispecies is kind of similar I believe, in that once it is agreed what source to use, there is no argument over what should be recorded. Ditto with Wikiquote and Wikicommons. I'm not sure how much editing and changing of definitions can occur at Wikitionary, but I am trying to draw the distinction here between Wikiprojects that involve editing and writing, and Wikiprojects that involve collecting and recording (aggregator projects, maybe). I would label Wikisource, Wikiquote and Commons as projects to record and collect existing texts/media. Wikispecies catalogues existing species data. Meta-Wiki might be called a manual/discussion forum. Wikitionary involves actually writing definitions and the other stuff a dictionary has. Wikibooks involves both republishing existing material and writing new material. Wikipedia records stuff, but does so by rewriting stuff or writing new stuff. Would this distinction, between the amount of writing and recording that goes on in each Wikimedia Project, be useful? Carcharoth 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource doesn't involve writing new text though it does involve writing of introductions, wikifying & adding annotations (distinguished from original annotations - to clarify the text), sourcing, proofreading,creation of author pages & lists of texts, categorisation, creation of translations of foreign texts, etc. There is a lot of scope for anyone who comes along to add texts or edit them, or indeed to edit the structure of wikisource so it is perfectly justified to call itself a Wiki. Atually going by the wikipedia definition a unique type of website, specifically one which allows anyone visiting the site to add, remove as well as edit all content, quickly and easily, without the need for registration. it could be arguably more of a wiki than wikipedia as wikisource doesn't require registration. By the way while wikisource does have some "frozen" versions of texts there are few of these & the protection policy is only just getting going (it is far easier to add a text than for it to be proofread, especially for it to be proofread by 2 users) . Perhaps 99.99999% of wikisource isn't protected. AllanHainey 12:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I always thought "wiki" defined the method of building a website rather defining the content.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I apologise for asking whether Wikisource is a wiki, which I realise may have offended some people. Of course it is a wiki. What I was doing was mulling over some of the differences between wikis. All the wikimedia projects are wikis, and all use wikimedia software, but there are some rather interesting differences between them. Nothing to do with the discussion of the wikisource slogan and its description on the Wikipedia Main Page (which is what brought me here), but something I thought I'd bring up. I agree with what you say below, that the slogan/description issues should be left to the Wikimedia Foundation to decide. My views are that both sides in such a debate need to be courteous. Respect the "linking" policy of the other wikiproject, but also respect the right of each wikiproject to write its own content for its own readers. Carcharoth 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets end the Wikisource debate . . . for now

Truly how any of the projects are represented is a Foundation decision. Since it is clear this cannot be settled amoung ourselves, they will have to make a decision. I would not be surprised if that took six months. Nothing good can come of any of us continuing this discussion in the meantime. And a great deal of bad blood can be created. As I have explained before, I am not happy with current situation. But I am appealing to everyone to walk away from this now. Please just let this make it's way through the slow but inevitable workings of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am taking these pages off my watchlist and I suggest everyone else do the same. If you do not follow my advice, please at least refrain from summarizing any comments I make in other locations here. I think I have been clear in my opinion, if you have any doubts ask me on my talk page or IRC--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You make it sound as if something official has been submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation? I don't subscribe to IRC or follow much of the Wikimedia Foundation news or discussions, so am I missing something here? Carcharoth 11:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Birgitte did raise the issue on the Foundation mailing list here, though there appears to have been no replies to it yet. AllanHainey 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for pointing this out. Carcharoth 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource name...

Just one more comment, really for any Wikisource people who are still around. I was wondering whether, in the light of all this thing about Wikisource best being described as a library, why the name Wikilibrary isn't used? Has this already been used elsewhere? It certainly seems a clearer and more easily understood name than Wikisource. Carcharoth 11:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we want to go down the route of changing wikisource's name, there is enough problems deciding whether the logo needs to be changed. The name wikisource derives from its original name project sourceberg, a pun on Gutenberg. While it is a wee bit odd there is no reason to change it as it is basically a library of sources. Either name would be technically accurate, but wikisource sounds better & is already well known. AllanHainey 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SisterProjects templates

Hi! I'm a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee which is organized to manage inter-Foundation and extra-Foundation communications such as the SisterProjects templates.

I have skimmed through discussions here and elsewhere regarding the language choices on Wikipedia. I will be bringing this issue up at the next committee meeting (sadly, 1 April at 0900 UTC). I would like to mention there is an effort underway to collect all Project/Language logos, slogans, and descriptions at Slogans.

To give the best information possible to the Committee, I would ask that a very succinct answer be provided for the following questions:

  • On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's slogan?
  • On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's description?
  • Is the SisterProject template on Wikipedia using slogans or descriptions for all projects?

- Amgine 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alignment

Would someone please fix this! The Main Page has the three logos (Wikiquote, Commons and Meta-Wiki) on a separate line from the Wikispecies logo for some reason. --Connel MacKenzie 03:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing versions, it looks like only the most recent edit (28 March) is causing the problem. --Connel MacKenzie 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've simply reverted that edit, I'm not sure what it was intended to accomplish. If it was supposed to do something that's now missing, please figure out how to do it another way. --Michael Snow 06:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See #Text aligment above. I've now added the "text-align: left" to the 8 parent divs. It looks fine in my browser, but of course it looked fine before, too. User:dbenbenn 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource tagline

To try and deal with this situation, since it appears Wikisource would like their slogan of "The Free Library" acknowledged, I suggest we use "free library of source texts" as the description. This accomplishes the following:

  1. Incorporates the slogan
  2. Gives enough description to let people looking at this know what Wikisource is (that's the ultimate purpose of the template, I believe, and the slogan alone doesn't quite do this)
  3. Distinguishes Wikisource clearly from Wikibooks
  4. Suggests to the mind why it's called Wikisource in the first place

Would that suit people? --Michael Snow 06:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried this wording. Despite the description that appears on their main page, the Wikisourcers indicated that their site contains more than source texts. (Therefore, "free library of source texts" is overly specific.)
Please see the archived discussion. —David Levy 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have found that the use of "source text" leads to a misunderstanding about the scope of Wikisource. What about "free library of source material"? Is that too vague for you? Unfortunately the scope of Wikisource is very broad to it is hard sum it up concisely.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I recognize and share your concern. Wikisource contains more than "texts," so the description shouldn't imply otherwise. I don't, however, think that "free library of source material" is a better description than "free-content library." The term "free-content" is widely associated with the type of material that Wikisource offers. By comparison, the phrase "source material" (which I don't recall reading or hearing before) is unclear. Of course, this is merely my opinion. —David Levy 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just working with a thesaurus trying to come up with something after I saw Micheal's comment. I should have known better. I do not want restart any sort of debate. Amigne indicated that the wheels are in motion to make these templates consistant across projects. Forget what you have just read, I was not here. . .--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm merely expressing my opinion. I'm not criticizing you or attempting to squelch your input. —David Levy 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not attached to the word "texts" specifically, but I'd like to understand in what way Wikisource contains things that wouldn't fit that description. It was my understanding that the place for other media (images, sounds, video) is Commons.
Also, thanks for pointing me to the previous discussion. I fear the proposal suffered a bit from the acrimony that developed there. I don't want this to be a debate, I hope we can develop some mutual understanding to reach an acceptable solution. --Michael Snow 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with a slogan (I think it's fine as is), but I updated the logo to the stylized iceberg (it's what they use now, anyway).--HereToHelp 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eu InterWiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Wikimedia. Thanks.--Berria · (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing wikipedia family?

Does anyone notice some of the wikipedia projects are missing?

This may include:

  1. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
  2. http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia
  3. http://egamia.com/wiki/Main_Page
  4. http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
  5. and some more

Is there any place which list all other wiki projects, not just the "8 main sisters"?

If not, should we try to compile a page or template like the above?--Wai Wai (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these are not sister projects. They are associated with Wikia not the Wikimedia Foundation which governs Wikipedia, Wiktionary, et cetera. The way I understand it, they are not related. It just so happens that User:Jimbo Wales and User:Angela work for both. They are probably thousands of wiki on the web. I see no reason to create any template with all of them. Wikia lists all of their wikis. -- Psy guy Talk 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity link

The wikiversity link appears in red on the main page. It appears correctly on the template page, though. I tried clearing my cache, but it is still in red. Maybe someone should take a look. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..never mind. It seems to be fine now. Dont know how, but the link automatically changed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V: to http://en.wikiversity.rog/wiki/ . Oh well...-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is doing it again per this timestamp. Syrthiss 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion in multilingual port

Hi. This template should be included in the multilingual port, as the one that is there now appears to be the old version. Thanks - Jack (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Could an admin add the greek interwiki to this template. It shall be linked to el:Πρότυπο:Αδελφικά εγχειρήματα. Thanks very much. --CeeKay 06:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikiversity

please change the png-wikiversity logo to "Wikiversity-logo.svg" - thanks --87.122.19.46 10:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. NCurse work 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
MediaWiki automatically renders all SVGs as PNGs. The PNG in question was derived directly from this output and optimized specifically for use in the template (with the blank border removed). Switching to the SVG (which wasn't uploaded and protected) resulted in an inferior image, and I've reverted this change. —David Levy 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary

There a new official Image for Wiktionnary : Image:Wiktprintable_without_text.svg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.51.94.74 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 November 2006.

It hasn't been implemented yet, and there still are some important details to work out before that can occur. —David Levy 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New 'clickable image' method

I have updated this template to use the new 'imagemap' mediawiki feature. One issue I noticed is that the little 'i in blue circle' icon which links to the image description page cannot be re-sized. It is fine for large images, but seems a bit over-sized on these little thumbnails. I have placed this on the left to minimize the amount of overlap with the project icons themselves. --CBD 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be hidden by putting "desc none" within the <imagemap> tags, which I have just done. the wub "?!" 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template name

Perhaps this template should have another name. This one sounds similar to Wikipediadisaster at a first glance. --Eleassar my talk 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki links:

[[ca:Plantilla:Contingut Projectes germans]]
[[ia:Patrono:Projectos Wikimedia]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 11:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Template_talk%7EWikipediaSister_a1c7.html"