Template talk:Commons

Discussion
Before this template gets too widely deployed, per Using Mediawiki templates what are people's thoughts about it? Briefly from me:


 * 1) I've always thought the interwiki links were too hidden in the left nav, so this seems like a good way to make it clearer that more information is available.
 * 2) Provided it's always at the bottom corner of articles it's reasonably inconspicuous.
 * 3) Usage of this type of template for sister project links seems to be fairly standard across Wikimedia projects.
 * 4) If we're going to use this template, shouldn't it also add the left-nav interwiki link automatically?
 * 5) Looking at Glacier National Park there are layout issues with the article status template and routebox (status is smooshed left).  Is there a way to improve the UI for this?  Would shrinking the box size help?
 * 6) Is there a larger discussion somewhere about Template:Sister and links to other Wikimedia projects?  Aside from Commons and Wikipedia I don't know if there are any other WMF projects that would be relevant for us to link to, so maybe a smaller, cleaner UI could be developed?

-- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 19:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To put it bluntly, this template is a n00b mistake which I created and then abandoned as we already have mw:Extension:RelatedSites to put the link in the sidebar. Take it out and shoot it. Wikipedia uses these because they reserve the sidebar for other Wikipedia languages, not siblings. K7L (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this template per above. --Saqib (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

VFD nomination
The template page says, "This topic may not meet our article criteria and should be merged into Template:Sister. Relevant content from here and any new content should be placed at Template:Sister. You can help by copying any relevant information from this page to the new page. Please direct any opinions to the talk page and gain consensus before removing this tag.Reason for merging: None specified." On the talk page, there is a clear oppose vote, along with another comment by K7L stating, "To put it bluntly, this template is a n00b mistake..." Unless it has a use, shouldn't this template be deleted accordingly? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also Template:Commonscat that may be in the same boat. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As there is no response, I don't really feel like plunging forward on my own, I'm leaving the full 21-day period allowed for discussion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I plan to archive this discussion as "keep" when I have the time, unless someone replies in this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 20:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I expect to do it this afternoon. My weeks are getting busier and busier, it seems. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will actually do it today. The result is keep. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 12:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)