Template talk:Plain sister

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Link bit[edit]

Understand that without the _link that the parameter is shorter, however, it seems different from the other conventions through part of the site and on sister sites, including what is in {{author}}. I am wondering whether that is the preferred means forward. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Discussion of this template and near relations is at Template talk:Interwikidiscreet. 07:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

formatting with commonscat[edit]

When this template is used with just |commonscat = … then the produced code adds a comma and a space at the beginning of the output. Needs a fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, I was never entirely happy with the output. I suppose this will occur where a work has a cat for the illustrations, but is unlikely to have an article. cygnis insignis 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed it again, but think I prefer the implicit labels of the earlier version. More explicit, with title case loses the clean look. Didn't fix the problem obvious solutions escape me lately. cygnis insignis 16:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is the way to go, a long list would be rare …
Biography at Wikipedia Wikipedia-logo.png
Media at Wikicommons Commons-logo.png
Quotes at Wikiquote Wikiquote-logo.png
I'm not sure why I missed the comma-problem but I've fixed it. Can someone please move the contents of User:AdamBMorgan/Sandbox to this template please (I'm locked out). As I write, there is a comparison of the current live version and the amended sandbox version at User:AdamBMorgan/Sandbox2 (although this will change as soon as I move on to something else). Ironically, the solution to the problem already existed within the template—it was used to prevent the template appearing if no parameter are used. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I copied your Sandbox2 contents to the template. Please alert if issue is still not resolved. 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the label, pardon the instability, but I finally found the link I was looking: [icon] sister projects: is as plain as it gets! cygnis insignis 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the alternative, my only objection is that I like the option of having a full list of sisters available regardless whether they're rare or not. You could convert this template to that format without much trouble (change the wording, some charges to the div format and use line breaks instead of commas). As the rare options rarely display, functionally it would be the same. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts about header linking for "other" authors[edit]

Been trying to think how best to do a leading/highlighting link for works about authors from the main namespace, eg. at Canon Kingsley the only way to locally link is via a standard link in the body of the work, and that can get lost in the text. Whereas we have work about and by this bloke, so in some ways it should have a similar relevance as an interwiki link like we do with {{plain sister}}. On a few pages, I have seen {{wikisource-author}} used and it is butt ugly. So my thinking is that we could be wanting to link to an author from the main namespace, is it that "plain sister" has need for a wikisource-author like link? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in this case the primary focus should be getting the reader to the appropriate the Author: page first & foremost rather than tempting them to jump to WP or wherever on a sub-page of a mainspace article with sister-links in the first place? I'm not very bright but I had no problem being led by the nose to the Author: page for Alfred Tennyson and then jumping to WP from that page's sister-project link for example.
Seriously, I don't see much benefit from corrupting the sister-links scheme in place with the addition of such an incestuous link (i.e. different namespace, same Wiki). I agree that {{wikisource-author}} is not very pretty; maybe it needs a streamlined version akin to "plain sister's" size, position and function to send idiots like me to the Author: page before introducing the option to jump elsewhere next. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a nice neat and intuitive way to indicate 1) that we have other works by the author, 2) that we have works about the author, 3) that our sister wikis have other related subject matter, and 4) in case, you're in the wrong place altogether, there are other similarly titled works. And, 5) we may want to be particularly specific about the fact that there are multiple editions of the same work (whether by the same author or not). I agree that the current internal sister links are clunky and the boxes are butt ugly and not something we should use, they work only slightly better over on enwiki where they were designed. We have nothing good for the first two, plain sister works well for the 3rd, but {{similar}} doesn't work well for the last two, at least the name doesn't (similar works sounds to me like works of a similar nature not a similar name and certainly doesn't suggest multiple editions). All of this should be consistent, though I'm not sure we want to clutter the plain sister area with internal links. Maybe if we just had a separate but identically formatted section listing relevant internal links such as "works about", "other work by" (yes I know those would both link to the author page but a new comer wouldn't know that), "other editions" (linked to {{versions}}, etc.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, but how about adding a new line for related authors, just as we now have a new line for portals. Check out this sandbox revision for what I mean. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: just going through the motions even though its already implemented apparently; no rationale to block other proposed specialized parameters if this is implemented; {{wikisource-author}} still old & ugly — George Orwell III (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipediacat and wikiquotecat[edit]

Also want to look at {{wikipediacat}} and {{wikiquotecat}} which seem to fit within the plain links space. I had thought that we could just make something like wikipedia = Category:xxxxx xxxx, however, the links says "Wikipedia article" which is not correct. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at what is in cats, maybe it needs a Category: version separate or with magic. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could make them separate parameters (i.e. wikipediacat=Stuff| wikiquotecat=Stuff), or we could shorten the resultant text to "Wikipedia" and leave the template as is. Or we could try to perform magic to detect "Category:", which then doesn't allow us to link to both a category and specific page at the same time, which is probably unlikely but would introduce unneeded (IMO) lack of flexibility. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

As other sets of links are being included in this template (and it does group everything in the same place), I've moved some text and links from {{disambiguation}} into this template. The links provide some context-appropriate searches based on the page name. It only activates if the disambiguation parameter is called and only disambiguation templates should use it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a search engine on every page, and a special page for 'pages beginning with X' and 'page contianing X'. I have no objection to those being improved, and better advertised, but having a "disambiguation" template automatically inserting a link (with a disambig icon) to do a special search (which will probably fail to produce results) is duplication, distracting, and noisy. For example: the disambig page Romanes Lecture contains paths to the various lectures; if a reader doesn't find Cinderella to be enough then searching on that word will find dozens of mentions in works that do not contain that word in the title. This is not what 'disambiguation'—a dubious term almost solely used at wikipedia—is intended for, I think this should be removed. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sister output[edit]

copied from Template talk:Header Currently, we have all sister site outputs as "Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, Commons category, quotes, news, definition, textbook, course, taxonomy, meta." I feel like the odd ones out are "Wikipedia article, Commons gallery and Commons category," which are wiki-specific. I think that changing this to something like "encyclopedia," or "encyclopedic article' or something, and then "media gallery," and "media category" are more consistent with "quotes, news, definition, textbook, course, taxonomy, meta." Are there any objections to changing it? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Commonscat is failing to collect Wikidata field[edit]

Commons category d:Property:P373 is the field for CommonsCat at Wikidata. It should be picked up in plain sister and flow through to relevant pages, however, it is failing to do so. I cannot work out where it is failing and ask that someone more familiar with the workings of this template and Module:Plain sister please to have a poke. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made an addition to {{author}} that might solve this in one namespace (it worked with {{author/sandbox}}). I tried adding something similar to {{plain sister/sandbox}} but that didn't appear to work. The module is not reading properties from Wikidata at the moment. It can probably be changed to include that function but I'm not quite sure how to do that right now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Viewing history source[edit]

Is there a way to view the source of this article as it appeared in earlier iterations? Lestatdelc (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lestatdelc: I am not sure what you are asking. This is a template that pulls in components of data links to the other English language wikis, and a few internal components. What is it that you are hoping to see? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)