Template talk:W

Untitled
What's the point of this template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-creation of Template:w
We have had the template w to easily create links to Wikipedia a couple of times. This was deleted many years ago before this was a WMF sister project and again with virtually no discussion. Users seem confused by how this is a very simple and direct typing aid that just reduces MediaWiki overhead and typing: it's a standard template on many, many sister projects, so I don't think there's any reason for deletion. I recreated it as it was already being used on one page and I was surprised that it had been deleted here when I was expanding an article. Even tho I think it's pretty uncontroversial to have this simple aid for linking, it seems wise to at least call attention to it being recreated. Is there some reason why this simple and standard template can't be here for our fellow WMF editors who are accustomed to easily making Wikipedia links? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd support such a template. It is very off-putting that most wikis have it but we don't. Thanks for recreating, Koavf. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 05:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What's the important use for it, and when would we use it instead of the Wikidata link? Though since we're talking about sister site links, it really annoys the Hell out of me that Commons galleries instead of categories are linked. For example, the Commons gallery for Midway Islands is linked instead of the category, and the gallery sucks! But even an experienced Commons user like me took a while to realize that the problem was that I had clicked a link to the gallery, not the category - but I am unable to change that link on the Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikidata link? For what? I'm confused by what your question even is. If you have text like, "The Mission: Impossible films feature Tom Cruise", it is easier to type "The Mission: Impossible films feature " . That's the purpose: to make editing easier. It's also why most other sister projects have an identical template (tho many have a second parameter for a little modification of the target, etc.--I just went with a quick fix to convert a redlink to blue). As for why Midway Islands links to c:Midway Islands and not c:Category:Midway Islands, that is because d:Q47863 represents "Midway Islands" and whatever equivalent there is on a Wikimedia project, such as a travel guide here or an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia or a gallery on Commons (i.e. whatever is the main namespace), whereas d:Q8628456 represents "Category:Midway Islands", an item that links Wikimedia projects that are categories about the Midway Islands. They're just two different things. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Linking text like that to Wikipedia is a violation of Links to Wikipedia, so why do we want to give official imprimatur to it by approving a template that makes it even easier to do? As for my point about linking to a Commons category rather than a lame gallery, you missed it. Ttcf means that we should link to helpful Commons categories, not lame Commons galleries that have some tiny and not necessarily even good subset of images. Do you understand now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Links to Wikipedia are not disallowed entirely and it's perfectly appropriate to include them, e.g. with a link to your user page on the Pub. I understand your point, but it seems like you missed mine which is that in your proposal, you want to connect to different concepts on Wikidata whereas the point of Wikidata is to connect the same concept to the same concept. That is the entire function of Wikidata interwiki linking. If you think that we should link to a relevant Commons category in the sidebar, that could easily be done with modifying local code as I recall, but it may take a ticket on phab:. Are you proposing that we try to add Commons category links in addition to gallery links? Another option is to make the galleries good. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest simply substituting a link to any Commons gallery with a link to the category in question. The concept of interwiki linking is faulty in this instance, because the results are terrible, as in the example I outlined. It's very rare for a Commons gallery to be close to as useful as the category. In terms of the template, yes, it's fine to use on talk pages or in some exceptions to Wikivoyage guidelines on inline linking in articles. It's just that your example troubles me as a likely usage case, and I have to wonder whether we are facilitating even more violations of Wikivoyage guidelines that will have to be policed. Can we add some language on the template page that addresses how to use and not to use it on this site? Also, I really do have to wonder how is really easier to type than Tourism . One fewer keystroke, I guess, and we're including it for the convenience of people familiar with the template from sister sites, so I guess. . Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because no one on Earth wants text to read "I sure do love Tourism", but someone could plausibly want it to read "I sure do love " without the extraneous "w:" at the beginning. Interwiki linking is not faulty here as they are semantically the same: the main namespace of Wikivoyage is linking to the main namespace of Wikipedia and Commons (and other projects). You are correct that a lot of galleries at Commons are lo-quality, so if you think that we shouldn't link them, I'm not sure if there is a solution. See, e.g. France, where the sister projects links go to c:France, France, and France and Category:France, where it links to a bunch of things at d:Q8249 which are called "Category:France" or some local equivalent. Alternately, the solution is to make galleries better at Commons. :/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do I keep seeing "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved." every time I edit this topic? —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs)
 * That's my stupid fault for including a template within an H2 header, which I should not have done. I have fixed it now. Sorry. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I understand the reason for the template. On the other topic, I don't think anyone is going to spend time improving Commons galleries; instead, I understand that many have been deleted, and I think Commons is deprecating most of them slowly or plans to do so. If adding the Commons category in addition to the Commons gallery makes it easy to click a link to it, at least we should make the inclusion of the category a default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But why wouldn't we want to make our lives easier by saving a few keystrokes? I'd argue it would be far more easier since this template is used on almost every single wiki I routinely and sporadically edit and thus make the lives of frequent cross-wiki editors a bit easier. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have modified the appearance with a span of, so it looks like an external interwiki link (a la Tom Cruise and ) and not a local, internal link (a la Western Sahara). So at the very least the problem of "this looks like we have an internal travel guide about Tom Cruise" has been fixed and there is some indication that you are going to a sister project. That may not overcome all objections, but I hope it's at least a reasonable fix for that problem. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to make it easier if it leads to larger-scale deviation from Wikivoyage guidelines, but that's the only reason, and I already conceded the point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Commons problem is worth its own discussion and has little to do with this one.

For the template.
 * 1) It helps people from sister projects, who are used to using it. They will not check the documentation page for usage guidelines, so I assume IK is correct in fearing more guideline-violating links. Making it easy to remain ignorant of differences between projects is not a good thing.
 * 2) For typing, where the link is appropriate,   has one more character than   (noted by IK). I don't see that as important. The visible "w:" is actually good in many contexts where such links are appropriate; "see w:Tom Cruise". The syntax should be familiar to seasoned Wikimedia editors, and I don't see how creating a link by a template would reduce server load ("MediaWiki overhead").
 * 3) Our policy is to minimise user-visible template use. As this template should get used mostly on talk and user pages, in text that doesn't need to be edited by others, that's a minor issue, but still means that there should be a good reason to introduce it.

–LPfi (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)