Template talk:Plain sister

Add topic
Active discussions

Link bitEdit

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

formatting with commonscatEdit

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  
Media at Wikicommons  
Quotes at Wikiquote  
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" authorsEdit

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 wikiquotecatEdit

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)


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 outputEdit

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 fieldEdit

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 sourceEdit

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)

Automating wikipedia links: determining cascades and monitoringEdit

A proof of concept template, viz. Template:Import enwiki, was put together using user:RexxS's advice and their developed module:WikidataIB to look to the next level of automating our wikilinks, primarily to English Wikipedia, though there is no restriction to automate all the sisters. (what follows is thoughts for suggestions, melding) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hierarchy of linking should be MANUAL LINK[1] >> ITEM INTERWIKI >> SECONDARY INTERWIKI[2][3]


  1. category checking for where manually overwritten interwiki
  2. suggested based on a link through main subject
  3. where multiple subjects are listed and we need to manage connections

Namespaces to be usedEdit

  • Main ns: primary target with linking explained above
  • Portal ns: could follow the same linking
  • Author ns: not certain it is pertinent to do secondary linking; though maybe we could link sole author pages to group authors in the absence of wikilink, though P921 would be the incorrect property, would need to one for part of a partnership (cannot think of its name)
  • Help ns: not certain that it is relevant; well cannot think of a use case, and think direct interwiki would be enough
  • Category ns: is usually only where this template is purposefully added, and is often one where we have manually forced a link due to a category about an author's works. (needs scenarios)
  • Translation ns: per main ns.


This is something I've been wanting for ages! What do you mean by "category checking"? Do you mean to look at the sitelink of the categories of a work? I think following main subject (P921) is a good idea, but only after checking for edition or translation of (P629) and maybe others. I had a go at implementing this last year, but lost traction on it. I'd be very happy to try again!

I think we should define a common flow for what properties to check. I think in the most part we can not worry about what namespace we're checking from because the properties are prioritized (e.g. if a category has category's main topic (P301) and main subject (P921) defined, we use the former). So, for any page in any Wikisource NS:

  1. Use sitelink if a direct one exists.
  2. For 'Wikidata' sister links, only ever use direct sitelink.
  3. For Wikipedia, Commons gallery, Commons category, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Meta, check for the following properties in this order, and use the first item found:
    1. edition or translation of (P629)
    2. category's main topic (P301)
    3. Wikimedia portal's main topic (P1204)
    4. main subject (P921)
  4. Do nothing for 'Bibliowiki' sister links.

The main reason I suggest checking the properties for all namespaces is that it makes the module simpler. We can set up a set of test cases for the module, if that'd help. —Sam Wilson 13:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I've got a functioning sandbox of the property cascade; some examples:
Hamilton, Thomas (1563-1637) (DNB00) main subject (P921)
The Nether World edition or translation of (P629)
Portal:University of Kansas (from interwiki)
Banksia Incognita main subject (P921)
Portal:Banksia spinulosa (from interwiki)

these are the changes I'd like to make to the module. What do you think? I've made some test cases at Module:Plain sister/sandbox testcases.

Sam Wilson 21:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Butting in just as a Wikisource contributor/ user, I think these look really good. In each case the Wikipedia link that appears is a sensible one, and the cascade seems very sensible. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Samwilson: your cascading looks fine, I am presuming that the four automated criteria are selectively mutually exclusive (my brain isn't computing today). Though I am also wondering whether we would also look to have WD apply constraints to flag deviations.
  •   Comment For category "checking" I will substitute the word "tracking". I would like for us to identify pages where
    • the automated link matches the manual link (so we can remove)
    • the automated link differs from the manual (so we can review)
    • a manual link, though no automated link (so we can look to add)
      • maybe this last should be further categorised based on namespace or the property used
    • multiple choices within a property where one is chosen [if possible] (so we can rank)

billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Banksia Incognita" is getting a doubling … "category:category:" — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

edge case

Some of the DNB articles have more than one person (primary/secondary), eg. Teeling, Bartholomew (DNB00). Firstly should this article have one or two subjects listed? If we say one, can anyone suggest the alternate property, then if that is the case, would we pull a link from WD, or do we just pass as it as all too hard?

@Samwilson: What would you like done to progress this? Also noting that there is now a more automated linking of P629 to the sidebar now, and whether that pushes other changes that we may have. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

commonscat not relevant through P921Edit

@Inductiveload: For the interwiki linking that is now applied through this template, I would think that we would ONLY be wanting CommonsCat when it is the interwiki, I am not certain that we are wanting CommonsCat linking through main subject. For example, I don't see the relevance for a biographical article like 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Adams, William to have links to the gallery or cat. It is a biographical article only, so yes to the enWP as it bio to bio. If it is a work where the images have a distinct category at Commons then I would expect the interwiki would be against the item and come through the interwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: sounds sensible, but what about the other sitelinks? For biographical articles, "quotes" would probably be a not-infrequent transitive link that will be picked up. For topics, wikiversity and wikibooks could pop up (as well as wikispecies for biological things). We also do need to traverse the claims for things like Portals. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I would leave Specieswiki in via main topic; I would allow all others to be manually entered or rely on interwiki; well at this stage. We can add anything later, if we so choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:   Done - only Wikipedia and Wikispecies should show up via main subject (P921). Because Portals link via Wikimedia portal's main topic (P1204), they should still get all the links. Manual override works as always. This is all pretty easy to adjust later. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Beaut, thanks fo the fixes and the knowledge. AND that is a new property to my knowledge. Typically if we have a portal it interwikis to an article or a portal. I am not certain that I can think of a use case for main ns to an external page at a portal, however ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)