Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects

Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Manual of Style  
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 
Note icon
The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and carefully.
Note icon
See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

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)Reply[reply]

Usage of template commonscat[]

Please join the discussiopn in Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Commons. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soft redirects to sister projects[]

On 3 September with this diff I changed this guideline to reflect how soft redirects are used in practice and have been for many years. Today this was reverted by @Red-tailed hawk on the grounds that it "substantially changed the meaning". It does change the meaning, but in a way that means it follows actual usage and repeated consensuses at RfD (policies and guidelines are intended to be descriptive). Specifically the change is from requiring soft redirects to sister projects to be restricted to titles that are "commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated" to noting that these are examples of good uses of soft redirects to sister projects. Unless there is consensus otherwise I will reinstate my change in a few days (again because it matches actual practice). I will leave a pointers to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirects and Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examples of consensuses at RfD to soft redirect titles without consideration of the two criteria:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 25#Hatchet job
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 29#Shroomers
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 11#Wackyparsing
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 24#Scuppie
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 4#Top kek
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Wedding tackle
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Brain freeze (psychology)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Liberally
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Farfetched
See also this search for many additional examples.
Soft redirects do not get frequently nominated at RfD and when closed the result almost never mentions their soft redirect status (i.e. they are closed as "keep" not "keep as soft redirect") so the discussions are very hard to find but from memory those discussions do not pay (strict/any) attention to the criteria. RfD discussions generally treat them the same as ordinary redirects: i.e. determining whether they are useful search terms, and if so what target best helps someone using that term find the information they are looking for. When the best target is a page on a sister project (in practice this is almost always Wiktionary) the consensus is to soft redirect, regardless of whether it is commonly wikified and/or repeatedly recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has been longstanding exclusionist guidance in that guideline going back to 2008; the restriction on only linking commonly wikified words dates to then, while limiting to repeated re-creation has been in the guideline since 2017. Boldly and substantially changing the longstanding guideline to remove both of these restrictions is something that should be evaluated by wider community discussion; I've seen experienced users citing this guideline at RfD as the basis for deleting a redirect rather than linking to another project. Some ors choose to ignore this guideline at RfD, but a survey shows that this guideline does get cited for this exclusionist language by longtime ors. The fact that it's still cited explicitly by longtime ors indicates to me that there's some level of persisting community acceptance and I don't think that a bold removal was warranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because it is cited by some doesn't mean it has consensus. Of the discussions found where this is cited (a tiny handful compared to the number of discussions closed as soft redirect without it being considered relevant) only in one does it unambiguously gain consensus (in another it is unclear whether it did or didn't) vs multiple ones where it didn't, was irrelevant (the discussion concluded that there was a better internal target or it was deleted for other reasons) or where the consensus was for soft redirection despite this guideline being mentioned. The change would not prevent the deletion or non-creation of soft redirects, just change it from an exclusionary directive to a guideline that matches how it is applied in practice and the nature of a style guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope such as commonly wikilinked words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. Wikipedia should not contain a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase. MB 15:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]