Wiktionary talk:Links

In-line links to sister projects

It would be nice to have a template that saved on typing while providing a good format for in-text links to other WMF projects (or the subset that we choose to permit. The existing approach using "w:" as in [[w:Example|example]] has drawbacks:

1. It requires a pipe and duplicate text just to eliminate the "W" that appears, which is unattractive and uninformative to casual users.
2. It provides no clue to the casual user that the link is not to something in Wiktionary format (size, type of information, etc.)

I am not aware of a template that is suitable for such in-text use. "R:W" gives quotes around the link and a blue link for Wikipedia. (See Mirandize#Etymology.) The quotes are undesirable and the blue link in full-size text seems unnecessary.

My preferred look would be something like:

See Miranda v. Arizona (in Wikipedia).

A legible, clickable, more compact substitute for (in Wikipedia) would be fine, of course. I could see this look as being useful with {{temp|spelink}}, which has other functionality (esp. it checks to see whether wikt has an entry before offering the sister project link). DCDuring TALK 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking there was a solution to this that would just involve CSS, no templates, but I was wrong. That is, it would add the same text to all external interwiki links (including Wikisource and links to other Wiktionaries), plus the text would be included in the link. And it wouldn't work in IE6 or (apparently) IE7 in any case. So enough of that.

There might be issues with widespread application of something like {{temp|spelink}}, particularly with its current "expensive" use of #ifexist. But I believe that's work-aroundable, if one just finds a template that Robert has worked on and copies it. ;-)

I wonder if a little Wikipedia globe icon would be obvious enough here? Having the message in text (even shrunken italic text) kind of breaks the flow. -- Visviva 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the server costs or coding issues with these templates, but if the aim is to save typing it seems there are different contexts requiring different options for editors to use. Some contexts requiring different templates (or a template with optional parameters), are:

• A plain in-line link that doesn't break the flow and there is no need to alert the reader that they are going to be taken to another site/project:

• a link to the same whole word, same case, no pipe required (e.g. [[w:example]])
• a link to part of the word (e.g. [[w:example|s]])
• a link to the same whole word, other case (e.g. [[w:Example|example]])
• a link to part of the word, other case (e.g. [[w:Example|examples]])
• a link to a completely different word or phrase (e.g. [[w:USA#Occasions when GWTFB played air guitar|examples]])

• An in-line link that doesn't break the flow but tells the reader explicitly (in the text) that the link is to another site/project,

(e.g. "If we examine Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Cheatsheet we see that blah blah ...").

This is most relevant to the 2nd drawback DCDuring points out above. IMHO this is the most pressing need because full transparency, no surprises for the reader, is the preferred option in the vast majority of cases, {{weasel}} not withstanding.

The template for this scenario should ideally enable the editor to just type the shortcut, e.g. W:WP:LINK, and enter "y" after the "exp=" parameter, to get the expanded display Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Linking

• A template to give a complete stand-alone phrase/sentence complete with project and link, like "See (optional also?) Example (in WikiComedyInPolitics)".

(A small icon as well would be visually helpful as long as it fitted in the line height - difficult with user-browser-adjustable font sizes.)

The "mouse-over" or "hover" text displays the target as typed, rather than expanded, so (even if their browser and OS settings enable them to see the "hover" text, at all or in time) it cannot be relied on to give readers enough extra clues (although clever programmers may be able to provide optional hover text parameters like hov=exp vs hov=abbr - and we can debate discuss which is to be the default!).

While the present topic is in-line links, any Help or policy guidance should also mention the alternative info boxes with icon and links, which may be more appropriate in some contexts:

• with link to an article with the same name as the containing article, eg {{wikipedia}}
• with link to an article with a different name, eg {{wikipedia|Example}}

Editors need to be able to choose a template that meets their intended audience's long-term needs as well as their own immediate needs. Thanks, -- Bricaniwi 14:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

w: also works for other languages! (no templates used)

I just found it out by accident. e. g. [[w:de:Sport]] will link to the German WP sports article, as you see here: w:de:Sport Thought I'd mention it. -andy 92.229.82.159 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor-inserted links in cited texts, not in original

Like this: [1]. I was under the impression there was a policy stating that we don't do this (because it falsely suggests that the original source contained the links?), but I can't find it here. Anyone? Equinox ◑ 14:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)