Help talk:Interwiki linking

Links in file description pages

It would be useful to clarify that in file description pages, links such as en:Mariupol (with visible “en:”) are not appropriate. Hence, [[:en:Mariupol|Mariupol]] or {{w|Mariupol}} needs to be used instead. --Leyo 10:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Leyo:

Ich bin mir nicht sicher ob ich dich richtig verstanden habe wonach du fragst

Ich vermute du beziehst dich auf Special:Diff/648599932, bei dem ich mithilfe von User:Sarang/simpleSVGcheck.js [[w:Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War]] in {{W|Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War}} geändert habe. Wenn ich dich richtig verstehe willst du, dass das solche Änderungen offiziell als gewünscht deklariert werden?

Auch wenn ich die Änderung selbst gemacht habe, sehe ich das anders als Sarang. Ich als Nutzer möchte wissen ob der Link nach en:Mariupol oder nach de:Mariupol geht, bevor ich die Maus dorthin bewege.

Wenn man einen Beschreibungs-Text hat und den verlinkt gebe ich dir (und Sarang) recht, aber wenn es aber um den Link geht (bspw. bei der Quelle), dann sollte auch optisch ohne en:Mouseover und ohne anklicken ersichtlich sein wohin der Link führt. Es ist somit eine Frage des Fokuses. Hier im Deutschen Text habe ich Mouseover verlinkt, da er nicht im Deutschen existiert, habe ich auf die englische Wikipedia verwiesen, daher würde ich hier auch die Sprache angeben, damit ein nicht-Englisch-Sprachiger den Link gar nicht anklickt.

Ein Entfernen eines "en", rechtfertigt imho nicht einen Edit mit Wachtlist-tickeling, auch wenn ich das selbst sicher auch schon gemacht habe.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 10:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mir geht's um die Beschreibung, wo innerhalb z.B. von {{de| angenommen werden darf, dass ein Link auf den deutschsprachigen Artikel führt. Siehe dazu etwa diese Änderung. --Leyo 10:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this change. Hiding the language of the target article seems to be a detriment to the reader. Especially with the example you give above to Special:Diff/648782647, we go from two links clearly labelled for different languages to two piped links that appear to the casual reader to be for the same article. Unless there is something I am missing, this suggestion seems to be a step backwards. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hoovering the mouse over the links will provide this information. If we would want to provide information about the link target, it should rather be in the form of … Mariupol (English Wikipedia) … or so. --Leyo 20:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? What benefit is there in doing it your way? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not “my way”. It's just practice. For example, (virtually?) no file description page in the Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons contains a visible en: or de: in descriptions. --Leyo 22:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support Marsupium (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Purely because the proposer is unable to provide a logical reason or benefit for the change. Evidence has been provided of some pages that use the proposer's preferred style but equally we have pages that do not use their preferred style (hence the proposal to change those pages). If it isn't broken, there is no need to waste volunteer time to fix it. If the proposer can provide a benefit to the change beyond "I don't like it" then I may reconsider my position. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that the description is not standard text anymore (and thus more difficult to read), if there are one of multiple en: in front of linked words.

Of the 5835 files in Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons with [[:en: only 42 (<1%) currently have links with visible en:. For [[:de:, it's 5 in 2774. Hence, links with visible language acronyms are really uncommon in reviewed file description pages. --Leyo 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You say that it is easier to read and I say that it is obscuring the site that you are sending the reader to. Your priority is visual appearance and my priority is transparency. We are not going to reach agreement here. You can still form a consensus with a lone dissenter but you will need to build up a bit more support. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Should [[:en:Mariopol|Mariopol]] (Mariopol) or {{w|Mariopol}} (Mariopol) be recommended? The only visible difference is in the tool tip. Alternatively, both options may be mentioned. --Leyo 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the latter you don't specify the language – on file description pages you should not default to English. Thus the alternatives are [[:en:Mariopol]], [[:en:Mariopol|Mariopol]] and {{w|Mariopol|3=en}} (substitute other languages to your liking).

The choice between these three is a minor detail on file description pages. The foremost issue is to get sensible descriptions at all. If an editor makes the additional effort of checking the names of relevant Wikipedia pages and linking them, applause. We shouldn't make writing file descriptions one iota more difficult than necessary. Let the editor choose.

For featured media and similar there are higher standards and I have no opinion on how the linking should be done for those. I suggest leaving that discussion to the folks involved in the creation, nomination, voting and adding descriptions for those, and leave the resulting instructions at those instruction pages.

–LPfi (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)