There are now at least two templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWikitravel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWikicities
that point to projects that are not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but which look exactly like Wikimedia Sister Project templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASister_projects
Both the Wikitravel and Wikicities template are used on lots of pages.
It's difficult enough to explain to people the difference between wikis, Wikimedia, and MediaWiki. We're not helping our case by using identical templates for outside projects. In the case of Wikicities, we especially want to avoid this confusion, as Wikicities is a for-profit, and Wikimedia is a non-profit.
I recall that the Wikitravel template was listed for deletion, with the rationale that regular external links should be used, but there were too many Wikitravel fans opposed to it to get through. The Wikicities template would likely meet a similar fate.
So we need a better solution to make it clear that these are not Wikimedia projects.
My proposal would be to list *free content* websites somewhat differently from normal ones, but to not give them a full-blown "sister project" type box. For example:
== External links == ____________________________________ | [[Free content]] links: | | * Wikitravel | | * Wikicities | |____________________________________|
Where the box symbolizes a different background color. But that's just the first thing I can think of - other ideas would be welcome as well.
Note that I would classify "non-commercial only" licenses as non-free. There should at least be theoretical compatibility with Wikipedia.
All best,
Erik
A simple text link in the external links section of a page would generally be more appropriate than a box or template. We already have policies regulating the addition of external links to articles, and these should be applied to Wikicities and Wikitravel in the same way that they are to any other site. Just because something is free content, or hosted on a wiki, doesn't mean we should give these sites any special consideration when deciding what is actually useful as part of an article.
I feel Wikipedia has way too many of these boxes already, and we need to make sure these don't proliferate by allowing any free content site to add their link in this proposed box if that link is not useful to readers of that article.
For promoting Wikimedia's own projects, the template is more justifiable, but even there, I would prefer if this was regarded more as meta data than as article content. Generating sister project links automatically, or having them as part of the interface rather than the article would be far preferable. Anthere made a request in bugzilla related to this last year (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708).
Angela
-- Angela Beesley Wikicities.com
Angela (beesley@gmail.com) [050427 15:03]:
I feel Wikipedia has way too many of these boxes already, and we need to make sure these don't proliferate by allowing any free content site to add their link in this proposed box if that link is not useful to readers of that article.
Jamesday has occasionally threatened to switch templates off altogether when the database is having a particularly hard time of it. While drastic, after one too many boxes this solution does have a certain appeal.
For promoting Wikimedia's own projects, the template is more justifiable, but even there, I would prefer if this was regarded more as meta data than as article content. Generating sister project links automatically, or having them as part of the interface rather than the article would be far preferable. Anthere made a request in bugzilla related to this last year (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708).
They are metadata, really. A place for this sort of related *internal* metadata (which Wikicities and Wikitravel content most certainly isn't) would be a very useful thing. Same for spoken versions of articles (there's some dispute on en: where and how to link these). It's the sort of stuff that *almost* belongs in the interwiki language links, but *not quite*.
- d.
Angela wrote:
For promoting Wikimedia's own projects, the template is more justifiable, but even there, I would prefer if this was regarded more as meta data than as article content. Generating sister project links automatically, or having them as part of the interface rather than the article would be far preferable. Anthere made a request in bugzilla related to this last year (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708).
Eh, I'd prefer that they stay as is - I use them only when there's useful stuff where I'm linking, like more photos than will fit, or when there's an official document on Wikisource about the subject of the article (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Florida_State_Road_renumbering , which I really need to get back to).
Angela a écrit:
For promoting Wikimedia's own projects, the template is more justifiable, but even there, I would prefer if this was regarded more as meta data than as article content. Generating sister project links automatically, or having them as part of the interface rather than the article would be far preferable. Anthere made a request in bugzilla related to this last year (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=708).
Angela
Nod. I still support this proposition very much and hope one day a developer will find interest in it :-)
Ant