Template talk:On Wikipedia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Earlier discussion[edit]

This template is developed in cooperation with User:Timeshifter, Marcel Douwe Dekker, Rocket000 and others. Some or the earlier discussion about this was:

Template:On Wikipedia[edit]

The following talk-item is copied here from the Category talk:Diagrams page by User:Mdd.

Feel free to improve it. Rocket000(talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. I will give it a try here:
 The article On Wikipedia on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram ·
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
This is the result I am getting here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions to improve it? Rocket000(talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing for now. I wonder if it makes sense to alter the instruction on the Template:On Wikipedia, like this:
Basic usage:
{{on Wikipedia| de=Hauptseite | en=Main Page | fr=Accueil | es=Portada | pt=Página principal}}
This makes it a little easier (for me) to edit the template instruction because the line automatically breaks in the Wikipedia editor!? If you know what I mean!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sometimes I forget not everyone edits in 1280x1024 resolution. :) Rocket000(talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing. Does it make sense to add the term "about" in the first sentence: The article about Diagrams on Wikipedia projects:
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The other options[edit]

Now I will try the other options. Inline:
 The article On Wikipedia on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram · (cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
And floating:
 The article On Wikipedia on Wikipedia projects: (en) Diagram ·
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · (el) Διάγραμμα · (es) Diagrama · (eu) Diagrama · (fa) نمودار · (fi) Diagrammi · (fr) Diagramme · (io) Diagramo · (it) Diagramma · (nl) Diagram · (no) Diagram · (pl) Diagram · (pt) Diagrama · (sl) Diagram · (sv) Diagram · +/−
It works. Uh, does it work? Doesn't it need an extra <Clear> functions -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was intentional so text can appear along side it. You can always use {{-}} after it to clear everything. Rocket000(talk) 08:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The {{-}} works, thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 The article On Wikipedia on Wikipedia projects:
(cs) Diagram · (de) Diagramm · +/−
And one other thing...!?
  • The foating option is very interesting
  • if there are just a few links to list like here.
  • for example in the (artifical) lay out here
Great...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One other question[edit]

I wonder if the template could be altered to translate interwiki code itselve. For example: you just add:

{{on Wikipedia| [[ar:اتخاذ القرار]] [[cs:Rozhodování]] [[en:Decision making]] [[es:Toma de decisiones]] [[fr:Prise de décision]] [[hr:Odlučivanje]] [[it:Decisione]] [[he:קבלת החלטות]] [[ja:意思決定]] [[pl:Proces decyzyjny]] [[pt:Tomada de decisão]] [[ru:Процесс принятия решений]] [[fi:Päätöksenteko]] [[zh:决策]] }}

and the template creates the lay out itselve (on the Decision making category). This could save lots of time, because you don't have to rewrite every sentence yourselve. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New template[edit]

Thanks for creating this template, Rocket000. I like the float option you have built in. Could you also add an option for font size? I don't think there should be only one size because people will have different needs depending on the category. Some will need to put the template into different-size spaces, especially if they are right-aligning the table. Also, it depends on the number of translations. If there a hundred translations people might want to use the 90% or 95% font size. Otherwise 100% would be fine in many cases. At 90 and 95% some people will have difficulty reading some of the intricate characters such as Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, etc..

Also, could you use darker text for the introductory line (The article On Wikipedia on Wikipedia projects)? That line can be hard to read for some people. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some options. I also made the default text darker. Rocket000(talk) 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Great! Lots of options. Could the default text color and background color be like that in this template:

It seems easier to read the small text of the translations with that background color. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a couple things.. The links on this template are a different blue which is actually closer to the background color in {{categorize}}. The colors used in that template are the public domain tag colors, i.e. {{PD-Layout}}, and using them outside of PD tags makes it less identifiable (although I know we already do this with some other templates). Personally, I always saw gray as Wikipedia's color (because of the logo, I guess). Maybe if I raise the default font size that will help? Rocket000(talk) 09:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, that explains it. I couldn't figure out why blue text on a blue background was clearer than blue text on a gray background. It seems like the blue used on Template:On Wikipedia is much harder to read for some reason. Looking at that blue text reminds me of the blurring caused by too much compression of a JPEG image.
I think you are referring to the text and background on these type of templates?:
I found them from "What links here" on {{PD-Layout}}.
I say use whatever works best whenever possible. That is my suggestion. Lots of people look at category pages, and anything we do to make it easier for them could get more of them involved. Especially people who hate squinting a lot. There are a lot of those people. 95% font size definitely helps as the default setting.
Maybe a lighter shade of gray for the background, and a darker shade of blue for the text? This way the template still has the Wikipedia gray formatting. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
{{PD-Layout}} is used in templates like {{PD-self}}. But anyway, I'll experiment with some color combinations. Rocket000(talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of this template[edit]

I have started introducing this template in the field of visualization in over 50 categories, see here. I noticed several things:

  • The template is very easy to apply because the source code is real simple
  • Two examples of the (most extreme) uses are:
  • In almost all cases I didn't compress the source code on one line, but left the this text under one and an other, see for example here. I hope this makes it easier to maintain the template.

I personly think the template works very fine and the result is acceptable. Off cause the question remains how other users will experience this their selves. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A collapsable version[edit]

I applied the template in some more extreme places:

I wonder if it is an possible to develop a collapsable version of this template for these cases? Or if it is just ok like that? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "io=" code[edit]

I noticed the template doesn't seem to accept the "io=" code. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


could someone create a copy of this template usable for wikinews links, and wiktionary?

{{wiktionary}} only links to english 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bold 2-letter language codes[edit]

I suggest making the 2-letter language codes bold.

This would make finding one's language easier. For example; at the top of this category:

Compare to the bold emphasis used in this category:

✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Period instead of bar between entries[edit]

See Category:Maps for example. I am thinking that a simple period between entries, instead of a bar, would make the list easier to read.

See Category:Religion. It uses a dot between entries. It is easier to read in my opinion than a list using bars. I prefer a simple period, though, to the elevated dot placed midway between entries. A period at the end of a sentence or entry is easier to follow for most people. It is what they are used to. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Insert Interwikis[edit]

Can this template (or a robot) insert the inter-wiki links for the side bar? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the point of this template, which is to be used if some interwiki links different than the side bare ones should be added. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I also think that a bot should insert entries on {{On Wikipedia}} because is the only way to keep things consistent. See this conversation I started: Commons:Village pump#Category interwiki vs Article interwiki.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. Linking to other articles/categories should be via interwikis. On wikipedia should be used more largely/widely for documentation in several languages for the basic meaning of non common names, such as pulpits, triforium, transcepts, rectories, pillories, gargoyles, ... (in slovenia for example). --Foroa (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
But this is not what the template documentation suggests. And what which interwiki do you choose if you have both category interwikis and article interwikis available? I though the sole purpose of {{On Wikipedia}} is to alleviate this problem. See also User talk:JarektBot#Interwiki to dissimilar page types.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I am considering practise. To me interwiki links are the most compact form and most used form. Personally, I set the corresponding articles first as categories are an internal organisation that changes often. Moreover, interwiki's are maintained by bots. My feeling is that most people that look for information on a subject want to see articles as there is no real information in categories; this is even more the case for people that have a limited command of English. The possible category interlinking is mainly interesting for bots and tools, so I put them after the articles (in the rare cases that I bother). I consider on wikipedia as an additional information source, mainly for documentation about the main topic, as stated: when in Gargoyles in Romania people might need more information about Gargoyles, not about Romania. --Foroa (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For most topical categories, linking to articles is all that's useful. Interwikis should always be the primary method. There's no reason to link to Wikipedia categories that are only similar in name. However, for certain categories like Category:Maps, which may also be similar in content (media), linking to Wikipedia categories makes more sense than articles. Some wanted a way to also link to the articles for information purposes (say you don't know what a map is and want to read more about it instead of finding more of it). That is this templates only intended role. There should be some thought on the purpose (usefulness) of it's use given the nature of the category in question, and not just blind application to any and every category (bots are very good at blind application but some users also tend to just add stuff because other categories have it without thinking about why they are). Rocket000 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Please add ml.wikipedia on this template. --Vssun (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, language li= Limburgs doesn't seem to be recognized. Thanks --Jwh (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Should not use {{PAGENAME}}[edit]

The template currently uses {{PAGENAME}} in the lead, like:

|eo=La artikolo '''{{PAGENAME}}''' en Vikipedioj:

Arguably, it should either use the respective translation instead, or should simply omit that part. Otherwise, the result may end up reading like (as per Category:Aldus leaf):

L’article Aldus leaf sur les projets Wikipédia : (fr) Cœur floral ·

Now, does it really look reasonable that L’article Aldus leaf is somehow named Cœur floral on the French Wikipedia? (And it could only get worse if used within the lead written in a non-Latin-based script, such as those for the not yet supported el or ru translations.)

Ivan Shmakov (dc) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


The obvious evolution of this template is to gather data from Wikidata instead of template parameters - at least, it should take links from Wikidata as default when no parameters are provided. Is anybody working to change it this way?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree, it would be really great if somebody updates this template. This would save a lot of time. --Stiegenaufgang (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
But what if the topic on a Wikipedia is a subsection of an article (i.e. something with a # in the link), instead of a full article? The instructions on this template say that it's not a substitute for the regular interwiki links. Wikidata seems make an assumption that items correlate across projects at the page level. Am I wrong about that? We shouldn't make a template refuse good information because it doesn't fit another project's blind assumptions. --Closeapple (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The template can gather data from Wikidata except when a parameter is provided. This would allow us to deal to special cases in a tailored way, but it would ease a lot the work of adding the template.
And about instructions, they assume that iw in categories will link to categories in wikipedias, and the template is to link to articles (and sometimes sections) on the same topic.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Has no one updated this to use Wikidata? czar 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I suspect uses of this can now be deprecated in favour of interwiki links through Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)