Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis

message: There's nothing wrong with displaying links to other wikis as normal external links. There's no clear advantage in distinguishing them from the other external links, as the reader could miss the box with its smaller font altogether, thinking it's the usual meta stuff. There is not much aesthetic or organizational value in shoving them to the side either, since most articles only have a handful of external links. –Pomte 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's something to explore, if it actually helps or not. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display as normal external links 

message: I think it was a good idea to junk the old proposal entirely.  Despite any opinions on what style the links should be, the odious bureaucracy proposed there is a bad thing.  I have made it plain I dislike the boxes (I'll write a more in-depth explanation later), but I would dislike even more a "system" for deciding "who gets a box". --Phirazo 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria could be simplified to: 1. Is a wiki, 2. Passes WP:EL. I also listed "is a benefit to readers and editors", but really that can be covered in EL, since a useless link won't be included in the first place. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the criteria really ought to be that simple, and I don't see why anyone would disagree, then this is completely covered by WP:EL already and there's no need for discussion on the criteria. –Pomte 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point.. I've removed that section from the proposal. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The old proposal 

message: It is considered helpful to the readers of Wikipedia for articles to link to wikis that are not part of the Wikimedia Foundation (such as Memory Alpha, the TV IV, and Wikitravel), since many of these sites host content that many would be interested in reading and contributing to, but is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  For example, Wikitravel is an openly editable travel guide, while Wikipedia is specifically not a travel guide.  Also, external wikis such as Memory Alpha, Wookiepedia, and the TV IV have details on fictional works that, while inappropriate for a general encyclopedia, are of interest to many people.  However, when linking to external wikis editors should review the guidelines on External links.  Also, remember an openly editable wiki can be a target of vandalism, so care should be taken when linking an open wiki, especially in biographies of living persons.
Style
Many external wikis are in the interwiki map and therefore are easier to link to.  Instead of full external link, editors can instead use a link with double brackets.  For example, Wikitravel:Rome gives this link: Wikitravel:Rome, which links to Wikitravel's article on Rome.  In an External Links section of an article, the generally accepted style of link looks like this:
*Wikitravel:Rome from Wikitravel
If an external wiki does not have an article in Wikipedia, the last link can optionally point the main page of the external wiki.
As an exception to this general rule, Wikimedia projects appear in boxes to the far right of the screen in the External Links section.  However, to avoid confusing readers, only Wikimedia projects should appear in boxes, while projects run by other organizations (including Wikia), should appear in a bulleted line format.
My 2 cents.  --Phirazo 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal 

message: Before becoming an editor, if I saw an "external" wiki, like Commons, Books, media or a Portals under an External link section I did not have a tendancy to use it. But if the link was in the See Also secton or Related content section, I used it or investigated futher.  To me, all "external" wikis are Wikipedia, or could be referred to as the "Greater Wikipedia".  The use of See also, is to link to related wiki aritcles not mention in the text, but give added depth to the article (and the reader) and stay within Wikipedia.... and the Commons, Books, Portals, etc. are no different.
* I propose that all "external" wiki links be no longer referred to as "external" but as part of the "Greater Wikipedia" and be referenced or applied in the See also or Related content Sections. And have a piped switch in the template to "left" justify the template, if needed. 
**Respectfully submitted. LanceBarber (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the readers perspective.... now as an editor... 

message: While I personally find most of these proposals acceptable, if I were to give a prediction on which one that would be most likely to get support, I would have to go with Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis#In-line EL with WIKI icon. It's a small step, less intrusive, and seems to be a likely "middle ground".
Depending on how it's presented, I  also think having the link in a nav template could get support as well. This would have the added benifit of being a single dynamic link that would always point to the appropriate article on the external wiki when viewed on a given page. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think the icon version is the best solution presented. My second choice would be one of the sister project-like boxes. MediaWiki.org already uses icons to link to other projects (within Wikimedia) in their Public Domain Help pages... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go.  It accomplishes the goal of promoting free content (especially if the tag makes a note that the content is free), and it isn't as big and annoying as the boxes.  --Phirazo 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a small inline icon that indicates free content (though I think using different ones for different licenses might be a more noise, less information sort of thing for most of our readers).  Free content is apart of the Foundation's mission and an inline icon that isn't too distracting seems like a good way to support that. Unfortunately this page is a proposal about indicating Wiki content - which isn't necessarily free.  As far as I'm aware neither Wikipedia specifically, not the Foundation in general has a mission to promote Wikis, the Wiki is simply a tool used to help collate and distribute free information.  So I'm not sure why we'd go out of our way to promote Wikis.  -- SiobhanHansa 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, editors will likely find it interesting, which is why one of the suggestions is to make the links on talk pages. But I am getting the feeling that this proposal should change gears and explore this inline icon concept for all free-content links. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A generic icon would be good too.   reduces nicely.  --Phirazo 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line EL with WIKI icon 

message: Compare these examples
*Noyelles-sur-Mer  English
*Noyelles-sur-Mer French
Note that the English link is darker than the French link.Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, that's a setting in MediaWiki:common.css. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwikilinks look different to wikilinks

message: Not a lot of attention / activity was seen here. I'm not sure if some ideas are rejected or dormant, due to that lack of activity, and I'm not really sure what should be done for existing templates that use a sister-box style, but I would like to explore the inline-icon idea for general ELs, and not just wikis, as mentioned above. If no one beats me to it, I might hit up WP:MOSLINK and try to promote this idea, maybe making another proposal page or something. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phirazo, could you make the image clickable so that instead of taking people to the image itself it takes them to some explanation of what copyleft content is?  I don't think this image is very widely known outside more activist populations.  And I don't think many of our readers (yet!) really understand copyright let alone the various free licenses and their benefits.  -- SiobhanHansa 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Took me a while to figure out how to do it, but here is a version with a clickable copyleft symbol.  
* 
--Phirazo 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step 

message: Why are we doing this discussion again? How many times is this now? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Point

message: Of the suggestions on this page, in addition to FCM, I quite like the modified FCM, the separate external links section, and topbox, all of which seem to me to provide a needed function of making our connections with the free content movement at large explicit, and integrating us as good neighbors with other resources, which also serves to better delineate our own borders and better define what we do. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article namespace, our role is to provide useful content, not to advance a philosophical "movement."  —David Levy 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. Our purpose is explicitly to provide and foster free content. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, our content.  Our mission does not include rewarding/penalizing other websites because they happen to operate under a similar/dissimilar model.  Being free doesn't make content good, nor does being non-free make it bad.  —David Levy 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am appalled to see that attitude. We should do what we can to help other free content resources, and help them improve. That's one of the major goals, for instance, of achieving license compatibility with CC-BY-SA. I am open to alternatives to FCM, but there are genuine advantages, which I have explained numerous times, to integrating ourselves into the larger world of free content. What do you propose to further this goal? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've repeatedly noted at Template talk:FreeContentMeta, I regard the inclusion of relevant icons next to the links as an appropriate method of identifying (and thereby increasing awareness of) free content.  I oppose methods that alter our standard layout and/or create a license-based ranking system or the appearance thereof.  —David Levy 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You can be appalled all you want, but that doesn't make you correct. We are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and any desire to be a philosophical movement is fine individually but not for the project as a whole. We don't link to wikibooks and wikiwhatever projects just because they are wikis. When we link to them it's because they have an encyclopedic reason to be linked to. DreamGuy (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibilities