Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects

message: At the moment I won't use  as I'm not sure if I'm indeed making an official request or not, but as a new launched WMF project, I wonder why such a "friend link" can't be here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Izno, Xaosflux and Stephen any inputs? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't see an issue. Izno (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's really ready for main page advertisement yet - also style wise we have a 4x3 grid now, putting 13 in there may be, eh... Maybe do some mock ups? — xaosflux Talk 09:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall that the grid resizes for resolution. It is 1 column for the majority of visitors. Izno (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like at narrow it converts to just a list, but with 12 we get 1x12 (maybe on a small phone?); 2x6, 3x4, 4x3 -- 12 is just such a nicely divisible number. 13 might look ok, that's why I asked for a mockup. — xaosflux Talk 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to add Abstract Wikipedia before too long, so it's no like we're going to have the luxury of this nice number. Just bite the bullet. Izno (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possible way is to not only add Wikifunctions, but also Wikimedia Incubator, Wikimedia Outreach and Wikitech so that would be 4x4. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

text: @Koavf I'd personally suggest to discuss this issue broaderly via a WP:VP board, probably WP:VPT? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

text: +1. Looks like there's enough consensus here already. — Frostly (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

text: There are only 67 people watching this obscure talk page, that's not going to generate an acceptable consensus to change the main page. It needs broader discussion, and to be honest, there's a few projects already on there that are of very limited interest to readers, including this proposed one. Stephen 23:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant how interested encyclopedia editors and readers may be in a travel guide or whatever: they are our sister projects. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

text: @Sannita (WMF) think we've talked about this one a couple of times - one hold up being that funct appears to be in pre-release still? (based on its own sitenotice). How is the roadmap on it going? — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Xaosflux We're out of the pre-release, and almost all of the normal functions for users are up. We're still developing new features of course, and some stuff is still limited to a certain class of users, but we're up. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for response, I've merged this to the existing discussion and activated an edit request for attention. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Can anyting useful be done with it? Not "I can reverse a string" or "I can add "er" to turn "good" into the English comparative "gooder" (sic, see ) or one that claims that "ja!çaj" is a palindrome but anything with real practical value? At the moment it looks like a playground for some programmers, not as anything we would want to send our readers to as it will have no value for them in the foreseeable future. Fram (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point. I believe (I stand happy to be corrected) that Wikifunctions currently only works with strings, but there are some strings I would consider useful, if to a somewhat specialized group. For example, when I'm citing a source that annoyingly stylized a long title in all caps (as many journal article do), I copy it into the "To Titlecase" function. Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cremastra We currently support booleans, strings, lists, and numbers as types of functions, just FYI. So, to make an example, it's also possible to make basic maths, like adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Again a very simplistic function, changing "I'm in a hurry" to "I'm In A Hurry", which isn't how title case is supposed to work. E.g. this website does it better, and has a "Wikipedia" style option. Wikifunctions so far is reinventing hot water, but only achieves lukewarm. Fram (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed the point of Wikifunctions. The website you linked implements some specific functions that its developers have chosen to provide. Wikifunctions allows anyone to implement their own functions. – SD0001 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I get the point, I don't see how it is useful to send our readers or editors there when after 3 years or so anything beyond the most basic stuff doesn't work. One would think that by now, some good example of "look at what we can generate" would exist beyond "we can reverse a string" or "we can add "er" to any English word". Why would we send people to a site where they can "implement their own function"? How does that help Wikipedia, how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge? I just looked at the "functions of the week", took one at random, , which does a duplication of a string (wow, useful, I guess, for writing articles...). So, I input "ba", expecting "baba" as the result, but get instead "void" (Details Errors). Why? A time limit, it took more than 9 seconds to change "ba" into "baba". This things is at best in alpha stage and not ready to be featured among the sister projects. Fram (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fram Thanks for your feedback. I'll report your experience with the team, to see if it's a performance issue, or it was just a case of malfunction that is already solved. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: As for "how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge", there's a video by Denny Vrandečić featured on the project's main page that answers the question. – SD0001 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support It's a live sister project, hence it should be linked to from this template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

text: We need to decide whether we list all sister projects, in which case Wikifunctions should be added, or whether we filter out some based on some notion of value to readers, in which case one could make just as much of a case for removing Meta-Wiki and possibly Wikinews. No opinion on which. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We should list all reader-oriented projects: that is, wikisource, wiktionary, wikifunctions, and all the rest (and mediawiki too, possibly), but not the community-oriented ones: i.e. meta, foundation wiki, etc. Cremastra (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  That's one interpretation. Yet Meta-Wiki is already listed. And the audience of wikifunctions is unclear. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The debate currently seems to be whether we should list all sister projects or only reader-facing projects, and where functs fits into that spectrum. There is growing support but also some growing debate about it. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[wikifunctions:|Wikifunctions]] or not? 

message: Hi all! Is it possible to add  Wikifunctions to the list of sister projects? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sannita (WMF) think we've talked about this one a couple of times - one hold up being that funct appears to be in pre-release still? (based on its own sitenotice). How is the roadmap on it going? — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Xaosflux We're out of the pre-release, and almost all of the normal functions for users are up. We're still developing new features of course, and some stuff is still limited to a certain class of users, but we're up. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for response, I've merged this to the existing discussion and activated an edit request for attention. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Can anyting useful be done with it? Not "I can reverse a string" or "I can add "er" to turn "good" into the English comparative "gooder" (sic, see ) or one that claims that "ja!çaj" is a palindrome but anything with real practical value? At the moment it looks like a playground for some programmers, not as anything we would want to send our readers to as it will have no value for them in the foreseeable future. Fram (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point. I believe (I stand happy to be corrected) that Wikifunctions currently only works with strings, but there are some strings I would consider useful, if to a somewhat specialized group. For example, when I'm citing a source that annoyingly stylized a long title in all caps (as many journal article do), I copy it into the "To Titlecase" function. Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cremastra We currently support booleans, strings, lists, and numbers as types of functions, just FYI. So, to make an example, it's also possible to make basic maths, like adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Again a very simplistic function, changing "I'm in a hurry" to "I'm In A Hurry", which isn't how title case is supposed to work. E.g. this website does it better, and has a "Wikipedia" style option. Wikifunctions so far is reinventing hot water, but only achieves lukewarm. Fram (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed the point of Wikifunctions. The website you linked implements some specific functions that its developers have chosen to provide. Wikifunctions allows anyone to implement their own functions. – SD0001 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I get the point, I don't see how it is useful to send our readers or editors there when after 3 years or so anything beyond the most basic stuff doesn't work. One would think that by now, some good example of "look at what we can generate" would exist beyond "we can reverse a string" or "we can add "er" to any English word". Why would we send people to a site where they can "implement their own function"? How does that help Wikipedia, how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge? I just looked at the "functions of the week", took one at random, , which does a duplication of a string (wow, useful, I guess, for writing articles...). So, I input "ba", expecting "baba" as the result, but get instead "void" (Details Errors). Why? A time limit, it took more than 9 seconds to change "ba" into "baba". This things is at best in alpha stage and not ready to be featured among the sister projects. Fram (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fram Thanks for your feedback. I'll report your experience with the team, to see if it's a performance issue, or it was just a case of malfunction that is already solved. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: As for "how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge", there's a video by Denny Vrandečić featured on the project's main page that answers the question. – SD0001 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support It's a live sister project, hence it should be linked to from this template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

text: We need to decide whether we list all sister projects, in which case Wikifunctions should be added, or whether we filter out some based on some notion of value to readers, in which case one could make just as much of a case for removing Meta-Wiki and possibly Wikinews. No opinion on which. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We should list all reader-oriented projects: that is, wikisource, wiktionary, wikifunctions, and all the rest (and mediawiki too, possibly), but not the community-oriented ones: i.e. meta, foundation wiki, etc. Cremastra (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  That's one interpretation. Yet Meta-Wiki is already listed. And the audience of wikifunctions is unclear. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The debate currently seems to be whether we should list all sister projects or only reader-facing projects, and where functs fits into that spectrum. There is growing support but also some growing debate about it. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Wikifunctions to sister projects' section 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects.  🌺 Cremastra  (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Special period advertising sister projects|Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) §&nbsp;Special period advertising sister projects]]

message: It'd be more streamlined to write  and remove subsequent occurrnces of "free". Of the projects that don't have "free" in their descriptions (presumably to save space on mobile), all call themselves free on their English main pages except meta-wiki, which reads  on mw:mission. This implies meta-wiki is free, something confirmed by any dictionary. We could make the description for WikiNews "news source" if a one word description feels too short. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page  15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we list "free" seven times?