|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikimedia sister projects page.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Wikipedia Help Project||(Rated NA-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Manual of Style|
|The contents of the Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects page were merged into Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Name sounds inappropriate and funny
Couldn't Wikimedia sister projects be changed to simply partner projects or associate projects? Use of the word "sister" would seem to violate Wikipedia's own policies on gender neutrality. Personally, I feel the current name is a bit cringe-inducing and may demonstrate a systemic bias on Wikipedia towards clamping down on all gendered words that refer to males, while rather inconsistently leaving those gendered words that refer to females alone (ie, daughter cells, etc). Let's try to be more consistent here; a name change is in order.Alialiac (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Partner and associate don't sound as close. If you must disengender the terms, the least bad genderless choice would be sibling. Changing it seems likely to do damage, on balance, though. The existing term sister has the weight of many years of good will behind it, which a change would not only kill the momentum of but would feel like somewhat repudiating. It is, in honesty, not clear what direction of bias —if any— might be caused by the existing term; one suspects the change, however, would create an appearance of bias we don't want. --Pi zero (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would oppose this on other grounds, too. The same camp who make objections like this also object to male-gendered terminology like brotherhood, mankind, and so on, and can't have it both ways. Nothing negative is implied by sister in this context, so it is in no way problematic. It's the same usage as sister cities, and comparable to mother of pearl and similar metaphors. English works as it works, and no amount of fantasizing about it magically changing into some new language utterly devoid of gender/sex-related terms is going to make idioms like this use of sister either go away or be deemed wrongful. I'm seriously starting to think we need a new WP:NOT#CONLANG: "Wikipedia is not a place for experimenting with language construction and language-change advocacy". A tremendous amount of overly-emotive and tendentious bickering has been in this vein, and it's gotten markedly worse in the last three years or so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not too concerned either way, but I did find sister a bit odd at first and brother would seem equally a bit odd to me. Maybe project cousin or another project in the Wikifamily? Facts707 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently the incidence is:
- Two exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).
This was something I fought for long and hard in the first few years of this encyclopaedia, however I recently came across 25 articles that I altered with an AWB script (between 08:55 and 09:52, 24 March 2021). They contained the following construction:
[[s:A Naval Biographical Dictionary/name of a biography|local name]]
The intention of this particular exception to the rule in the guidance of no external links in text of an article was because linking to an unfamiliar word or the text of a primary source on Wikisource can be useful and such text is banned in Wikipedia articles. However I think linking to a biography of a person on Wikisource is not a good idea because either the person is notable in which case there should be a red link to a Wikipedia article, or there should be no link at all. With the AWB script, I deleted the link and then added it as a footnote like this: ...Henry Gordon Veitch...
So I would suggest that the guidance is modified (probably with a footnote) to mention that linking to Wikisource secondary and tertiary sources in the text of Wikipedia articles should be avoid. Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that until we have serious disputes about this, we should probably not bother making a rule about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Location of Expand Language templates within articles - Proposed amendments to wording of WP:MOSSIS
For information, there is a discussion at Templates for discussion about the placing of the Template:Expand language within articles, and a proposal to amend the wording of this Style Guideline to make it explicit that WP:MOSSIS should include such links to non-English language wikipedias. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Hallucegenia (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)