905:
above comments a little insulting. I would strongly suggest that before anyone throws the baby out with the bathwater that he or she familiarize themselves with
Wikiquote's content guidelines and policies. I see no evidence of "copyright infringement" that is any better or worse than some of the examples that occasionally pop up on Knowledge (XXG). They, too, are dealt with sooner or later by both admins and editors alike. As for this proposal, I think it's a little reactionary, to be perfectly frank. Based on one bad experience, apparently one of you wants to do away completely with linking to the sister projects. Quite surprising. As for the logic, it's inconsistent in my view. By asserting that the sister projects are "unreliable" (and therefore not deserving of an external link), you should equally advocate removing all internal wikilinks on Knowledge (XXG) since they, too, run the same risk of unreliably sourced material from time to time. I remain unconvinced by the necessity of this campaign. Regards,
1969:
more about, it meant I had to dig and dig and dig for the information, whether it was mags or newspaper records, whatever. That is one area in which
Knowledge (XXG) really shines! Links on Knowledge (XXG), "wikilinks" if you will, often mean that someone else has already done the digging. So the work can go much faster. Instead of pulling out another physical volume, or heading to the public library or other available "footwork" sources of old, one just clicks a link to find more info that may be pertinent to one's investigation and study. The designers who felt that some links should be subdued had good hearts, I'm sure; however, that does not excuse the fact that a link to Wikinews in all articles that use the sister-projects template is presently not available as a choice for readers – and it should be. –
1092:
examining these concerns in detail, as this page is currently at odds with many other pages and doesn't reflect common practice. There is a place for links deemed to be reliable in Wiki articles, according to all of our other policies and guidelines, but I hope we can agree that we don't want to diminish the quality of any article by linking to information that is known to be unreliable, unsourced or even inaccurate; theoretically, no one here would encourage links to such external jumps within our articles, even if we do agree that they are an exception that is allowed in
Exernal links only because they are part of the broader umbrella, and even if they often contain content we would otherwise reject.
749:. Sister links, like all Wikis, contain content that we often wouldn't even accept in External links because of the nature of Wikis (non-reliable and often inaccurate). Many of them contain info that, if reviewed, would be excluded under any other circumstance from even being listed in External links, so elevating them to the level of including non-reliable external jumps within the text is at odds with all of our other policies on what we include within text versus what we include in appendices. Often, text that is removed or excluded from Wiki articles because it is spam, based on a COI, or unreliable simply moves on to a sister project, where it is accepted without question. (See the
2933:
856:. Many sister links contain inaccurate, unreliable, COI, advert and POV text which was removed from en.wiki; it is against several other policies and guidelines to include that sort of content anywhere in articles, much less within the body/text of articles as external jumps. We should not be violating core principles to include links to information we would reject under any other circumstances; we shouldn't be lowering standards to include external jumps to non-reliable info within articles, even if we at times accept them in external links.
1923:
additional value because their content is still either reasonably up to date, or an accurate and comprehensive record of an event (within the bounds of notability). For many
Knowledge (XXG) articles, the back catalogue of Wikinews articles will not yet be of value as a historical document, as it does not reach back far enough. The modus operandi of Wikinews means that it has a long-term patchiness that can never retrospectively be fixed. Those would be my main concerns w.r.t. listing it, by default, as an equal alongside all the other projects.
2256:
Commons template, or "Etymology" or "Definition" for a
Wiktionary template? In the more-developed articles (which are either more likely to be getting traffic, or where we'd like the higher-traffic articles to be), it may not be immediately obvious for the general reader that the templates would be in the "External links" section, especially if there's an extensive reference list, or other lengthy sections, in-between the respective section and the external links. I made the same mistake on
1299:
31:
2105:
2123:
2658:
2474:
2096:
2886:
2808:
2702:
2402:
2114:
754:
external jumps to non-reliable sources (which Wikis are), by allowing the placement of non-reliable external jumps within the text of our articles. They belong in
External links, where the LAYOUT guideline has always placed them, if there; when they are reviewed and deemed to be unreliable and inaccurate, they shouldn't even be there. I suggest this page should be synced with
300:
the text and citations, just as you are on this project. The logic of what you are saying would exclude all shared images on wikicommons as well because they they too are also not part of
Knowledge (XXG). I am not sure why you seem to think that "all the reasons well covered in archives" covers it. What do you consider to be "good reasons" covered in the archives? --
2051:
727:
2855:
3479:
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 Knowledge (XXG) 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...
2315:
My concern is that changing the language will encourage misguided attempts to link in this way. Wikiversity permits students to post original research and opinions. Perhaps I am being overly conservative here, by my initial reaction to your idea is, "if it's not broken, don't fix it". I will leave
2255:
While the default position is for links and link templates to be in the "External links" section, would it not be more appropriate in some cases to have them in relevant sections; surely, for instance, a "Quotations" section would be an appropriate place for a
Wikiquote link template, "Gallery" for a
2046:
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. My research was for my writing, and in that type of investigation every single type of clutter is significant. So what I must cede is that not everyone is a writer, so not everyone would share by belief that even "clutter" may be significant. Having said
1372:
Repeating, LAYOUT is a widely followed and widely quoted page, and that text has been there for years. This page isn't widely followed, so the place where a few
Wikipedians are dictating is here. Sibling projects are not reliable sources (although we have an issue in that Commons serves an entirely
1033:
The rewrite was helpful, but the core issues regarding the placement of external jumps in external links remain, as well as the strange placement in See also. While the page is now clearer and has some qualifying statements, the following statements are still at odds with common practice and several
299:
They can be just as well sourced as wikipedia articles. One of the reasons for Wikiquote and Wikisource was to move such information out of Knowledge (XXG). Both wiki quotes and wiki source can be as well cited as similar quotes on Knowledge (XXG), and if not you are free to go to those sites and fix
3214:
and how they relate to Knowledge (XXG). Formatting of links is only one facet of this, so such a move would either lose information or end up presenting information that is not relevant in an MoS article. I agree with option C insofar as there is material on this page that may be better presented on
1968:
for whatever their purpose. And that includes the news, both old and new, about the subject they are reading on this encyclopedia. Back when Knowledge (XXG) was unavailable, my work entailed use of several physical encyclopedias. When I read something pertinent to my writing that I needed to know
1260:
The "does not apply to sister projects" text in the external links guideline was not disagreed with. The disagreement was for general wikimedia links and the text was altered to only mean sister projects. I raised concerns that sister links should not be given carte blanche but was satisfied by the
791:
even though it has been emblazoned with a neutrality concern tag for more than 9 months. Do we really want to encourage links to such misleading material? We wouldn't do it with external links. Surely something needs to be added to the guideline that the material in the sister project needs to be
753:
FAR for a classic example of advertising spam from a COI editor simply moved to Wikibooks; there is no reason to include a link to Wikibooks text in the Stuttering article that would not be accepted in any external link or in our article content.) I vigorously reject inclusion within our articles of
2187:
I propose that interwiki links be collected together and put under one image as a sidebar. What goes into the links will be, of course, at the discretion of the editors of each article. The present system requires a separate icon for each sister (Wikiversity, Wiktionary, ect.). This wastes space
350:
Currently most links to other Wikimedia projects (like Wiktionary) point to the normal servers, even when the user is using the secure server. I am now updating the links in the MediaWiki interface and in other places such as the Main Page and the sister project templates. I make it so users on the
157:
I don't think that anyone would recommend putting "click here to see a bunch of pictures on a different website" at the beginning or in the middle of an article instead of at the end. Consider an article about an animal: links at the end are just fine. The best images should already be placed in
3639:
either go away or be deemed wrongful. I'm seriously starting to think we need a new WP:NOT#CONLANG: "Knowledge (XXG) 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
2009:
Why compromise? If one is writing, say, an essay for college, or a journalism article or even a novel, isn't "old news" just as important as "recent news"? And that old news, which may be crucial to an investigation or study, is often not included in a Knowledge (XXG) article or, if included, is
392:
This page seems to generally require "adorned" links, but then also approves in-line unadorned links to Wiktionary, so I'm a little confused. To me, the underlying cnosideration for a plain blue-link is that it will not unexpectedly deliver the reader to a different website. In a way, this is even
79:
I think that our advice about placement of sister links needs to distinguish between inline links (e.g., to Wiktionary and sometimes Wikisource), which no one much minds anywhere (assuming the page is worth linking at all), and scattering graphical templates throughout the article, which irritates
3478:
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 Knowledge (XXG) articles. However I think linking to a
1758:
template was proposed. I bring the discussion to this project page, the content of which governs use of the template. So for the purpose of this Request for Comment, the question is "Should Wikinews be a default, unhidden link in this template?" Please include your !votes and rationales below.
976:
Regardless of our personal views on the quality of projects such as Wikiquote and Wikibooks, I do not believe the status of Knowledge (XXG)'s sister projects is up for editorial discussion right now. This is doubly true when you invoke legal arguments, as the Foundation has repeatedly stated that
491:
guideline. The aim being that if a wiki source work is the subject of an article then a clean inline link should be provided below the plot section heading, the same should apply for any wikipedia article section summarising a wikibook or summarising a wiktionary entry - this was in response to a
2620:
I'm a little nervous my work will be undone so forgive my abstraction, but I thought it might be potentially valuable. On an article about a living person who is known for using catch phrases and famous quotes there is a short list. I've started adding citations for when they used those famous
1353:
should be placed in external links section at the bottom of the page does not help our readers to navigate easily to the link and back to the relevant sentence that uses the link. In situations like this it should be an editorial judgement by the editors of a page (who should know there subject
904:
Excuse me for asking, but do any of you actually have first-hand working knowledge of these projects? Do you have a lot of experience working with the editors there? Are you deeply familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikiquote, to name one sister project? I do, and that's why I find the
420:
that says " containing links to a group of related articles". Although sister projects are related to Knowledge (XXG) they are external in nature, nor are they article related in some cases. Navigation templates provide navigation within each Knowledge (XXG) not to sister links or other external
3556:
Couldn't Wikimedia sister projects be changed to simply partner projects or associate projects? Use of the word "sister" would seem to violate Knowledge (XXG)'s own policies on gender neutrality. Personally, I feel the current name is a bit cringe-inducing and may demonstrate a systemic bias on
384:
Moxy's recent change on where to place links, not because I disagree (or agree for that matter) with the change, but because one of our fundamental Tao-of-editing principles is that you don't change policy or guideline pages when you're in the midst of a discussion on whether policy/guideline
1091:
That's without looking at the remainder of the page. I look forward to a discussion of more specifics, without wording like "invoke legal arguments" or statements like "Knowledge (XXG)'s sister projects is up for editorial discussion right now". I hope we can get down to the serious work of
654:. The sister projects are external in the sense that they are outside the English Knowledge (XXG). A person who (perhaps unwittingly) goes to a sister project is in a different place, and may be surprised by it. For example, the user will get different results via search at each project.
1922:
Wikinews differs from the other projects in that the stories contained therein are not updated to reflect new information. Closely related is the fact that it is not a reference work. Rather, it is a collection of uncurated historical snapshots underneath the thin bark of articles that have
3329:
The wording has always been unclear. We need to fix this. Should we do it sensibly, or simply reword it to make the current "assumed" version clearer? How about, "If there is an external link, then link to Commons using the box template. If there are no external links, then
2351:
To me, it could simply be pre-agreeing a list here of which of the sister projects can be linked elsewhere in the text, but again allowing the same discretion (so essentially just clarifying or pre-defining sections that are also appropriate for sister project links). —
280:
I agree with WhatamIdoing (although I also dislike wikisource and wiktionary links in articles, as they aren't reliable sources, and are often not good quality). Everything else (except images) belongs in External links, for all the reasons well covered in archives.
2551:
It wouldn't hurt for this page to have a "See also" pointer to those place, but we do not need to (and usually have multiple reasons not to) rehash the same material in detail on multiple pages (the most obvious of these is gradual content-forking of the advice).
3591:
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
1358:. Tome it seems that the logic that some editors are expressing here is that it does not matter what is linked to in the external links section, (presumably because they think that the three Knowledge (XXG) content policies do not apply to that section). --
3557:
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1178:(my emphasis) where as current practice seems to accept links to sister projects regardless of quality. I prefer the standard covered here but I think it needs wider input or possibly just greater visibility to actually modify editor behavior on this. --
421:
sites. That said a section that announces they are external in nature sounds reasonable to me because our readers need to know they are leaving english Knowledge (XXG). I am more then willing to talk about it see what others think about the change I made.
258:
IIRC, there is recent and historical support for Wikisource and Wikinews graphical box links beside relevant sections within articles. Linking to Wiktionary from an etymology section is also logical. Linking to Commons from a gallery section might also be
3438:
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:
919:
Please see the specific example of the Stuttering article; diffs and links were already provided; the problems go beyond that one example, though, when this page contradicts multiple other commonly cited guideline pages, and even raise questions about
1085:
Examples of helpful sister project links would be a link to Wikiquote placed in a biography article alongside any discussion of famous quotations by the individual, or a link to Wikinews placed at the head of an article about an ongoing news
492:
request to tidy up some articles where the Wikisource box at the bottom was ugly and did need replaced with something better and something more natural than a link at the top or off to one side. All comments on my proposal are welcomed.
810:
is in breach of copyright; YouTube is heaving with it. We have different standards here. Wikiquote has long been a concern to me in this respect: I can't see how much of the content could possibly not be in breach of copyright.
135:
to put it next to the TOC, it fills the white space and if the article is about the source held on wikisource it is a sensible place to put it as it informs the reader that the source exists before have read the whole article.
396:
So comments please, are sister-project links permissible or impermissible in navigation templates; and if permissible, should they be adorned somehow to alert the reader that they navigate to a non-en:wp site; and if so, how?
2031:
for all time. If it fails so to do then it will only clutter investigators' efforts. Having once been a professional investigator I appreciate your point but don't think that an encyclopaedia is the right location for this.
784:
FAR which SandyGeorgia refers to above. The Wikibooks article on Stuttering was written mainly by a COI interest editor and contains much unreliable and incorrect information. Despite my efforts to alert the project to the
2199:
The proposed template would encourage authors to write on wikis, and this would help Knowledge (XXG) evolve from the world's greatest encyclopedia to the world's greatest bookstore where everything is free, open-source, and
1606:(example above), for articles about subjects for which we have a property in Wikidata. Please help to improve and apply it (can anyone generate a list of relevant articles?), and to migrate it to other-language Wikipedias.
1232:, elements of this page are in disagreement with points 1, 2, 5 and 12 at least. Why we would exempt Sibling projects raised interesting questions and they should be addressed; this affects the integrity of our articles.
2374:
For me the issue is simple, since I don't edit on Knowledge (XXG) very much - I let the editors of the page make the decision. If two editors of a page can't agree, this page might be a good place to seek other opinions.
93:
IMO, the only time that the graphical templates belong at the top of a page in the mainspace is when they're on disambiguation pages. Shall we expand this section to differentiate between inline and graphical links?
3634:
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
3520:
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 Knowledge (XXG) articles should be avoid. Thoughts? --
1839:-- My philosophy is that more information is better than less, you give people options and let them decide what is relevant. Excluding options from being presented means less opportunity to broaden one's vistas.
1015:
to articles on foreign-language editions of Knowledge (XXG) wherever possible.", and the replacement of the previous grammatically-broken usage examples with a description of examples of productive interproject
566:
It's the only place they list the transwiki templates, and interlink templates. There is no other page on wiktionary that lists that. (as can be seen by checking the whatlinkshere on the various templates). --
1963:
I don't understand how Wikinews "is not a reference work". Of course it's a reference work! Readers should have the choice to click on any link available to them to get any information they want and perhaps
199:
to develop without the need to quote other authors at the end of each posting (which quickly becomes cumbersome). I do not see how it can be considered confusing here, if in is not considered confusing on
3085:
806:
So do I. This is the slippery slope to lower standards of verification and of the use of non-free content on WP. I might just as well provide external links in WP articles to YouTube content that I
1708:
The main concerns here appear to be about the usefulness of categories on Wikinews and the claim that Wikinews has gaps and is not perfectly updated to reflect recent events. Hm, that sounds like
125:
And I disagree. For example if a redirect redirects to a specific section of another article it may be appropriate to put the template into that section. Also there are times when the best place a
2233:
1885:
pages offer nothing more than a random selection of sometimes very old news articles related to the Knowledge (XXG) article's subject. In my opinion, it would (only) make sense to have a link to
461:
are ugly, poorly placed (since we always put them down at the bottom), don't do justice to our sister projects. On Commons athis style of sister template has been largely deprecated in favor of
1354:
better than most) if the article in a sister project is of appropriate quality to contain a link from a Knowledge (XXG) page. This is not something half a dozen wikipidians should dictate from
3174:
if you want and document the "official" handling on those MOS pages, but leave this page in its current name as a nexus for all these several bits of information related to sister projects. --
1716:, like when one or a group of Wikinews articles are not well-curated. Editors are more than capable of making judgments about when such news articles are helpful or not. For these reasons,
3215:
the relevant MoS layout page (right now, the "sister projects" section is buried in the external links subsection), but this page still fulfils functions outside the scope of an MoS page. —
3098:, which weirdly doesn't even mention this page (it is rather hard to know this page exists, which may be one reason people aren't always following it). The material is short enough to merge.
213:
I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am referring to the common practice of placing images from wikicommons throughout the text. However there are times when it is useful to place a
2047:
that, let me also say that you make a good argument. Your user name is well-deserved! And just because I only very rarely give out compliments like this, don't let it go to your head.
2621:
quotes, as well as credit to the famous name with Knowledge (XXG) link, and then after the linked name another reference to the Wikiquote page of that famous name. Something like so:
1271:
3189:
The page contains sections which are not about "MOS" or linking per se. The current name works fine and I don't see any reason to unnecessarily move this to any subpage level. –
2980:
3081:
2669:
59:
1170:
because that guideline specifically stated it does not apply to sister project links. It certainly seems to be in conflict with current practice since this guideline states
3290:
Can we please get this sorted out. Stop duplicating two supposedly normative sections which don't even agree. And at the very least, make it clear which one has priority.
2629:
I hope you can understand what I mean, and that this format is reasonable, and perhaps either as is or better modified it might be worthy to include in the style guide. ~
792:
evaluated by an editor before inclusion? Encouraging the links to be in the lead strikes me as inappropriate given the unreliable (and ever changing) nature of a wiki. --
2326:
Can you think of language that more clearly states that exceptions are permitted without giving Wikiversity students the impression that they are free to use this device?
2215:
Not a bad idea. This will encourage readers to move across different WMF wikis more freely. It will be more beneficial to the other wikis than to Knowledge (XXG) itself.
1385:. How to handle Commons images is a separate issue, but I've never yet encountered someone who misunderstood the difference between Commons and other Sibling projects.
2307:
2297:
245:... scattering graphical templates throughout the article, which irritates most, if not all, of the editors that contributed to the last unresolved dispute over this.
1261:
posters acknowledgment that there was a guideline here to cover them. Also the conversation had about as many people providing input as this one currently does. --
552:
If there's a specific problem, such as relevant information being made inaccessible, then let them know in the RfD thread, or tell us exactly what the problem is. –
354:
This means I am editing many high-visibility places, and that I am doing a site wide change, so I am announcing this in case anyone has any comments about it. See
1123:
This text should be revised to specify that these templates belong under "External links" -- and perhaps also to note that they must comply with all of the usual
3450:
878:". This, to start with, should be toned down given the dangers to some of WP's pillars in too close a relationship to these so-called "sister" projects. BTW, I
2756:
704:
581:
I see the RFD thread is 18 months old, but I've commented there anyways, giving summary&suggestions. Hopefully that covers all of your/our concerns. –
47:
17:
253:
2) You define the scope initially as "graphical templates throughout the article", but then later state you only meant "at the top". Hence the confusion.
3077:
3058:
630:
to put it another way: i think that it was the wrong choice to begin with, & it's also out-of-date/been-superseded in the evolution of the wikis.
262:
I do agree that sister-project-box links are rarely warranted at the very top of an article (except disambig pages). Are there many instances of this?
2940:
1381:
to encourage insertion of non-RS into the text, and LAYOUT has very long-standing consensus (more than a few years); sibling templates belong with
393:
more important for a sister site, I've many times more than once used the search box on a sister project and wondered who changed all the content.
1080:
I am not aware of any guideline page or common practice that would place external jumps within See also, which is a collection of internal links.
1309:
in many many articles. Indeed it is impossible to tell from the image link if the image to the right of this paragraph is on Knowledge (XXG) or
1224:
so this needs to be addressed as well (typical of how MoS pages evolve with little coordination with other pages that are contradicted.) Under
958:, which prioritizes internal content over external content. External jumps don't belong in See also, which is a collection of internal links.
3073:
3054:
2896:
2818:
2424:
2290:
This language gives editors the discretion of doing things differently. I have violated this "general" rule on at least two occasions, as in
1713:
1478:
1466:
1462:
2786:
2665:
3821:
2839:
3095:
3026:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
2010:
only "lightly covered". When it comes to studying a subject for whatever reason, sometimes "old news is good news" really does apply. –
3802:
1928:
1897:
1669:
1622:
568:
516:
481:
3738:
3284:
3207:
2428:
2416:
2302:
1751:
477:. Does anyone have any thoughts on a way that we too could link major sister project links near the top of the page in a clean way?--
3610:
I would oppose this on other grounds, too. The same camp who make objections like this also object to male-gendered terminology like
1881:: There are some articles on Wikinews that are relevant enough for Knowledge (XXG) articles to link to them. However, in most cases,
1194:
it's subjective and not particularly helpful unless linked to or viewed in the context of our other policies and guidelines (such as
608:
how exactly was it decided (& by whom) that wmf sister projects "should" be placed in external links, instead of under see also?
3651:
3141:
3110:
2917:
2731:
2594:
2564:
2446:
2760:
2716:
2300:
at the beginning of the section. One of the editors publicly "thanked" for that edit. I have even used the pure inline link at ,
1507:
page; I'm wondering if the author of that edit was confused by this "Wikimiedia sister projects" page. Is anyone actually claiming
2147:
524:
1257:
I didn't relalise that was a recent addition. I think the intent is a good one. And I see your point about it needing context.
1012:
1004:
3507:
2939:
it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
999:
issue described by SandyGeorgia above, the rephrasing of the initial paragraph in the section from "Knowledge (XXG) encourages
3206:
per Netoholic and Ammarpad above. There are a number of style issues about Wikimedia sister projects covered in the MoS (e.g.
1712:
There's no question that Wikinews appears to offer articles that would be useful to link to from articles here. We also have
355:
1515:? If not, I'll add a sentence: "External links to sister projects, like any external link, are governed by Knowledge (XXG)'s
1486:
1423:
1363:
335:
305:
228:
141:
114:
2468:
2234:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes.3F
2228:
RFC on "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?"
1415:
1306:
1120:
WP:LAYOUT does not recognize any standard appendix named "Internal links." It does not accept external links in "See also".
780:
I concur with the concern expressed here; though I am not familiar with many of the sister projects, I was involved in the
1745:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3130:
as second. It's just damned strange that link-style-and-layout material on interwiki linking isn't all in the same place.
2661:
2081:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1755:
1719:
1407:
1350:
1334:
1326:
3076:. This would be shorter but less precise, and would also not be consistent with our treatment of, e.g., the sub-pages of
1889:
on (almost) every article, but this is something Wikinews is never going to be able to offer. 12:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
1934:
1903:
3261:
3017:
474:
3779:
3472:
2681:
1322:
1156:(who is not watching this page, because she can't bear to have another disputed guideline in her watchlist this month)
386:
1075:
1039:
Links to Wikimedia sister projects are best placed in the section of the article to which they relate, including the
1007:
when possible. However, links to sister projects should not be inserted excessively." to "Knowledge (XXG) encourages
2236:. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in Navboxes,
1465:. I suggest that those interested in the subject who have read or contributed to this conversation take a gander at
3711:
3703:
2998:
2528:
1600:
1566:
762:
and what we accept within articles (rather than the reverse, which was attempted yesterday and I reverted today).
462:
38:
3356:
change the format for linking to Commons just because of other unrelated aspects (such as how many ELs there are).
2892:
2814:
2488:
After a long search, I arrived at this helppage. Then, section "How to link" does not mention the option to use a
3770:
3759:
3221:
2516:
2357:
2323:
Are you aware of any instances where a valid request to violate the "general" rule with a sister link was denied?
2268:
1561:)? Every article with a Wikidata entry has automatically an entry in its 'tools' section called 'Data item'." --
1482:
1419:
1359:
549:
compared to Knowledge (XXG) (and if that is all they require, then good for them!). Spring cleanings can be good.
497:
331:
301:
224:
137:
110:
3829:
3810:
3750:
3727:
3718:
should include such links to non-English language wikipedias. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion.
3689:
3656:
3605:
3566:
3545:
3530:
3412:
3299:
3251:
3226:
3198:
3181:
3146:
3115:
3048:
3002:
2969:
2952:
2925:
2871:
2847:
2793:
2772:
2741:
2689:
2646:
2603:
2573:
2546:
2532:
2509:
2455:
2384:
2361:
2342:
2272:
2245:
2221:
2209:
2067:
2041:
2022:
2003:
1981:
1956:
1938:
1907:
1848:
1831:
1814:
1771:
1733:
1690:
1673:
1648:
1626:
1585:
1570:
1528:
1490:
1448:
1427:
1397:
1367:
1286:
1265:
1252:
1182:
1152:
1127:
rules, including making sure that the linked page actually has some justifiable value, instead of assuming that
1104:
1040:
1028:
970:
936:
914:
895:
882:
the use of the gendered word "sister" here; "sibling" is the right word nowadays. I propose that it be changed.
868:
824:
801:
774:
716:
698:
683:
663:
644:
590:
576:
561:
531:
501:
430:
413:
406:
370:
339:
309:
293:
274:
232:
174:
145:
118:
103:
3825:
3787:
3707:
3536:
I think that until we have serious disputes about this, we should probably not bother making a rule about it.
3496:
2843:
2520:
2380:
2338:
2205:
1678:
1. Please complete documentation, and mention this one in the sisterproject lists (had to search for this one).
3273:
3027:
1433:
488:
250:
1) Which discussion? ((cite!)) Links help people who are coming to a discussion fresh (or have poor memories).
2537:
No, I am at the right Help page. But the Help fails. Read my point again. This Help is supposed to help me. -
1117:
I see two places that suggest putting an external-links template under "internal" links. This is a bad idea.
3806:
2638:
1665:
1618:
1524:
572:
520:
366:
2986:
2921:
466:
195:
groups have been edited for 25 years or more, there is nothing confusing about it, and it allows different
3746:
3723:
3541:
3408:
3295:
1681:
2. Is there a reason why only "property" is provided? Other wikidata entries like "item" do not qualify? -
1548:
1444:
1406:, you say "sibling templates belong with external links" what about in-links such as the one given above (
1393:
1282:
1262:
1248:
1179:
1148:
1100:
966:
932:
864:
770:
694:
659:
289:
170:
99:
1211:
3648:
3269:
3138:
3107:
2728:
2591:
2561:
2524:
2443:
2131:
1653:
The "(see uses)" link helps them to find other instances, even when we do not have articles about them.
1562:
3061:– Consistency with all the other style pages. We consolidated them into the MoS for a reason. This is
3216:
2353:
2286:"Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section, not under See also."
2264:
2059:
2027:
The proposed 28-day window would give curators/editors time to incorporate the news into the article
2014:
1973:
1844:
1806:
1763:
1731:
910:
786:
493:
84:
3360:
The box template goes in the last section. This is so that the CSS floating works properly. This is
2625:"Fool me once..."(ref YouTube.com/speech /ref) ~ ((George Bush))(ref Wikiquote.com/George Bush /ref)
1709:
1576:
I agree that this template is basically pointless as every article already has a link to this page.
1274:; perhaps Tony knows what happened there. (Your edit summaries could use some improvement in tone.)
3464:
3178:
2867:
2376:
2334:
2201:
2037:
1999:
1798:
from its portal and category pages, so it is high time to make Wikinews unhidden by default in the
1298:
1222:
470:
445:
324:
217:
196:
129:
3715:
3696:
3501:
1508:
1474:
1432:
I don't see the logic or benefit in repeating this conversation on two pages: my responses are at
1355:
1071:
1050:
996:
947:
833:
755:
742:
615:. we curate them, they're open source/free, & the material is co-ordinated with what's on wp.
417:
3685:
3562:
3194:
3044:
2632:
1656:
1634:
1609:
1520:
1330:
1024:
712:
586:
557:
537:
At a glance, it looks like they're cleaning up old/abandoned documentation pages. They do have a
402:
362:
270:
3030:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1411:
1054:
1008:
1000:
3434:
links may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed).
3336:?? This is ridiculous, but a favourite of wikilawyers. It's an inconsistent mess for readers.
2515:
This is not the help page you're looking for. That page is, mentioned in the hatnote overleaf,
2260:
in a lapse of memory, but when I realised and went to remove it, it gave me pause for thought.
1313:. Personally I do not see the difference between that and linking to an appropriate section in
3742:
3719:
3601:
3537:
3404:
3291:
3158:
2965:
2948:
2188:
and also precludes multiple links to parallel or multiple articles on any given wiki-sister.
2168:
1952:
1924:
1893:
1827:
1581:
1555:
1538:
1470:
1437:
1403:
1386:
1275:
1241:
1144:
1093:
959:
925:
857:
763:
690:
655:
282:
166:
95:
1516:
1512:
985:
977:
attempts by Knowledge (XXG) editors to steal the foundation lawyer's job are not appreciated.
330:
next to the TOC, something which is useful for a reader when reading articles on treaties --
80:
most, if not all, of the editors that contributed to the last unresolved dispute over this.
3643:
3133:
3102:
2723:
2585:
2555:
2542:
2505:
2437:
2241:
1686:
1644:
640:
546:
455:
2122:
1019:
Hopefully these changes should address the majority of your problems with the guideline. --
981:
840:
Knowledge (XXG) encourages links to sister projects and interlanguage links when possible.
3695:
Location of Expand Language templates within articles - Proposed amendments to wording of
3630:
2768:
2257:
1840:
1724:
906:
890:
819:
1382:
1378:
1233:
1229:
1215:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1167:
1124:
1062:
1046:
952:
otherwise, they are usually placed in either "See also" section or External links section
853:
849:
759:
746:
161:
Your examples about graphical links to wikisource are irrelevant. My statement is about
3377:
If there is no EL section, move the Commons box up into whatever is now the last section
2161:
2151:
1342:
3456:
3239:
3175:
2994:
2863:
2292:
2135:
2033:
1995:
797:
679:
426:
2154:
1374:
1237:
1195:
1058:
921:
845:
542:
154:
Please don't insert your comments into the middle of mine; it's confusing for readers.
3681:
3624:
3558:
3526:
3210:), but the purpose of the page is to inform about what the Wikimedia sister projects
3190:
3168:
3040:
2790:
1310:
1020:
708:
582:
553:
398:
266:
2578:
Never mind; they're both already in the see-also section, too. Given that this page
351:
secure server see secure links, while users on the normal servers see normal links.
3597:
2961:
2944:
2216:
2194:
that I currently use to link physics resources related to my project on Wikiversity
2104:
1948:
1823:
1577:
651:
487:
I appreciate the age of this thread but have suggested some relate changes at the
3587:. Changing it seems likely to do damage, on balance, though. The existing term
3385:
If the Commons box would be at the foot of a large image stack on the right, use
3154:- Styling and linking is just one part of this page. Those sections already have
1270:
But the change to EL lacked oversight because for some reason it was left out of
789:
2538:
2501:
2484:
The page already provides multiple pointers to the location of this information.
2237:
1682:
1640:
1504:
924:
policy when we link prominently to information that is known to be inaccurate.
636:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2981:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#Template:Subject bar
1639:
How is this template "... such links are likely to be useful to our readers"? -
3500:
3431:
3427:
2764:
2675:
2473:
2095:
1872:
1410:) or to a word in Wiktionary? By what objective criteria are you judging that
1314:
883:
812:
781:
750:
623:
this instruction doesn't even anticipate the need to provide in-line links in
509:
1214:, we never knowingly link to sites that violate copyright. The exemption at
416:#18 that says "External links on Knowledge (XXG) navigation templates" and
3381:
There can be issues with image stacking on the right (see page links above)
2990:
2787:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)#Restrict Wikinews links in articles
2113:
793:
675:
478:
422:
2497:
1221:
with negligible discussion or consensus on talk and over some disagreement,
1500:
Someone recently tried to add a link to a low-quality Wikiversity article
611:
they're not "external"; those projects are part of wikimedia & run by
3618:, and so on, and can't have it both ways. Nothing negative is implied by
3522:
3346:
use an inlined template instead, if a stack of boxes would be excessive.
2757:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Archive 202#RfC: Linking to wikidata
2417:
WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects#Section merge proposed
2278:
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that it is more appropriate
3622:
in this context, so it is in no way problematic. It's the same usage as
2582:
tells you where to find this information, there is no action item here.
2293:
Casimir_effect#Derivation_of_Casimir_effect_assuming_zeta-regularization
2175:
2139:
265:
Specific examples would help all aspects of this discussion. Thanks. --
2785:
A proposal to add to this guideline has been made at the Village Pump:
1469:. So that we can reach a consensus so that the wording in the section "
3714:
to amend the wording of this Style Guideline to make it explicit that
2143:
192:
3333:
change the whole format of the Commons link to something unfamiliar
2761:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#New RFC on linking to Wikidata
2751:
1236:
is a guideline; much more significant is how these siblings impact
955:
3039:
to the proposed locations at this time, per the discussion below.
1467:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Links to sister projects
1463:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Links to sister projects
1297:
1172:
Knowledge (XXG) encourages links from Knowledge (XXG) articles to
317:
3059:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Linking/Wikimedia sister projects
3583:
disengender the terms, the least bad genderless choice would be
1822:- Encouraging links to sister projects can only be beneficial --
1754:
in which the idea to unhide Wikinews (hidden by default) in the
515:
Just FYI, Wiktionary has said that it's SISTER is deletable. --
3596:, however, would create an appearance of bias we don't want. --
3285:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Layout#Links_to_sister_projects
707:(which this page just transcludes) until January 15, 2013. ;) –
469:. On Wikisource they have been deprecated entirely in favor of
3471:) articles were usually (unsurprisingly) naval articles like
3164:
links and summary-style descriptions. Change the templates to
2880:
2802:
2705:
2405:
2333:
Not saying "no" to your suggestion, just not saying "yes". --
2232:
Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest to this page at
1225:
1070:
Depending on the article, this will place them in either the "
25:
2298:
Wikiversity:Quantum mechanics/Casimir effect in one dimension
1436:, the more widely followed and widely cited guideline page.
3268:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
2282:
to have them in a different place. The text currently reads
741:
This page is in disagreement with the longstanding text at
3640:
it's gotten markedly worse in the last three years or so.
1218:
for sibling projects was added by one user on May 14, 2008
3238:- I see no valid reason as to why this should be moved. –
3074:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Wikimedia sister projects
2263:
Is this something that others would support an RFC on? —
1794:
as nom – Wikinews has come a long way and often links to
2717:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata
2652:
Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikispecies redirect
980:
I do, however, believe that the existing version of the
3795:
3791:
3783:
3775:
3468:
3460:
3323:
3313:
3096:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Linking#Interwiki links
1701:
RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template)
1501:
1373:
different purpose). No guideline page should overrule
1219:
1192:
989:
381:
356:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Secure server#Sister project links
188:
3664:
Hmm, I'm not too concerned either way, but I did find
2695:
Linking non-notable subjects to their WikiData entries
1994:
Only unhide if the news item is less than 28 days old
832:
Besides that this page is distinctly out-of-sync with
3260:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
3086:
WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial
1718:
consensus was in favor of unhiding Wikinews from the
995:
Significant changes include the clarification of the
954:; external content has never been placed in See also
650:
The discussions mostly happened at the talk page for
90:-type links should be left under ==External links==.
3324:(Commons inlined, sitting alone in an empty section)
534:
is indeed being RfD'd. (it took me a while to find!)
3342:We use (by default) a box template for Commons. We
1752:
Template talk:Sister project links#Wikinews default
1592:
New template for articles about Wikidata properties
3672:would seem equally a bit odd to me. Maybe project
3276:. No further edits should be made to this section.
2429:WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects
1206:). And without giving numerous examples, at both
3234:as per everyone above - The page isn't about MOS
2425:WP:Wikimedia sister projects#Where to place links
674:Hello, what about Wikivoyage and later Wikidata?
1714:guidelines about when linking is not appropriate
1461:This issue is still being actively discussed at
836:, the issue of even greater concern is the text
3374:create an empty one, just for the Commons link.
3305:The perennial empty links section / Commons box
3208:Manual of Style/Layout§Links to sister projects
1319:
946:The page is additionally at distinct odds with
3122:The more I think about this, the more I favor
1011:to high-quality pages on sister projects, and
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Wikimedia sister projects
3309:Yet again, this has kicked off. Do we use:
2877:Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018
2799:Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018
2759:. See also the currently active revised RFC:
1947:"Uncurated" is, on the face of it, false. --
758:and with our other guideline pages governing
8:
3314:(Commons box, on the left to avoid stacking)
1408:wikisource:Third Geneva Convention#Article 3
1351:wikisource:Third Geneva Convention#Article 3
3082:WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Signatures
376:Linking to sister projects in nav templates
3702:For information, there is a discussion at
3016:The following is a closed discussion of a
2984:
984:section was horribly confusing, so I have
705:Template:Knowledge (XXG)'s sister projects
3055:Knowledge (XXG):Wikimedia sister projects
2897:Knowledge (XXG):Wikimedia sister projects
2819:Knowledge (XXG):Wikimedia sister projects
2711:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
2411:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
1481:" on this project page are in harmony. --
633:any opinions on changing or dropping it?
385:supports your side of the argument. {See
3400:of the section instead of the beginning.
2668:. Interested editors may participate at
1862:Wikinews should remain hidden by default
988:rewritten it for clarity and relevance.(
3487:
412:I changed it to reflect the guideline
3739:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Wikimedia Commons
3386:
1551:: "What's the point of this template (
1166:The guideline is not in conflict with
1057:if applied as described. Also raises
530:The link in your title is broken, but
109:With Wikicommons what about images? --
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3494:For more on Henry Gordon Veitch see:
3368:If there is no EL section, we should
2251:Location for links to sister projects
1176:pages on sister projects where useful
874:Indeed; my skin crawls at the "where
436:
165:of a page, not in the middle of it.
7:
3801:has been nominated for deletion. --
3339:Or should we do something sensible:
3035:The result of the move request was:
2519:, or, mentioned on the latter page,
2048:
1741:The following discussion is closed.
1045:(At odds with long-standing text at
358:for more on this and to discuss it.
3552:Name sounds inappropriate and funny
1750:A related discussion took place at
1191:"High quality" was added yesterday;
788:the book remains a "featured book"
189:indented comment between paragraphs
465:and related templates, such as at
24:
3678:another project in the Wikifamily
2303:Liouville's theorem (Hamiltonian)
1710:another project I've heard about.
1416:Knowledge (XXG):Wikimedia Commons
1307:Knowledge (XXG):Wikimedia Commons
475:s:Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens
3078:WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility
2931:
2884:
2853:
2806:
2700:
2656:
2472:
2466:
2400:
2306:, where I wrote in the lede, "A
2121:
2112:
2103:
2094:
2077:The discussion above is closed.
2049:
725:
463:Commons:Template:Sisterwikipedia
29:
3737:Please join the discussiopn in
3508:A Naval Biographical Dictionary
1892:Per FDMS and my comment below.
532:wikt:Wiktionary:Sister projects
191:has been the standard way that
3751:21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
3579:don't sound as close. If you
2086:Suggestion for interwiki links
2029:if it meets inclusion criteria
1920:(via Feedback Request Service)
1832:15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
1815:04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
1772:04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
1343:Q&A: Guantanamo detentions
1287:14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1266:14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1253:13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1183:12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1153:04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1105:18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1053:, also raises 1b concerns wrt
1029:06:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
971:03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
937:18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
915:06:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
896:03:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
869:23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
825:03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
802:02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
775:01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
507:
1:
3641:
3131:
3100:
2975:Links not seen in mobile view
2970:11:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
2721:
2672:at templates for discussion.
2662:Template:Wikispecies redirect
2647:23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
2583:
2553:
2547:23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2533:23:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2510:21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2467:
2435:
2385:18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
2362:18:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
2343:16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
2273:12:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
2222:05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1335:Guantanamo Bay detention camp
645:07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
437:There's gotta be a better way
371:04:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
3830:06:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
3811:21:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
3733:Usage of template commonscat
3657:03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
3422:Currently the incidence is:
3009:Requested move 12 March 2019
2742:13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
2308:proof of Liouville's theorem
2210:14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
2068:00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
2042:05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
2023:21:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
2004:09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1982:21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1957:02:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1939:03:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
1908:04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1849:17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
1734:22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
1691:06:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1674:12:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
1649:11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
1529:03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
1491:11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1449:20:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1428:08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1398:23:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1368:10:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1333:did cover prisoners held in
1226:Links normally to be avoided
684:15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
467:Commons:Category:CommonsRoot
431:04:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
414:Knowledge (XXG):LINKSTOAVOID
407:20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
3771:Template:Wikimedia projects
3473:French brig Palinure (1804)
3065:. Two other possibilities:
2953:22:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
2926:22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
2911:to reactivate your request.
2899:has been answered. Set the
2872:03:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
2848:01:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
2833:to reactivate your request.
2821:has been answered. Set the
2616:Knowledge (XXG) + Wikiquote
1323:United States Supreme Court
482:12:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
3845:
3728:17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3690:11:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
3531:17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3455:With the exception of the
3413:00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
3300:00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
3252:13:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
3227:18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3199:17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3182:17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3147:14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3116:14:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
3049:17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
2698:
2604:01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
2574:01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
2464:
2456:01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
2398:
1887:full related news coverage
717:00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
699:00:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
664:00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
601:see also vs external links
591:23:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
577:09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
562:08:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
525:13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
340:20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
310:20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
294:17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
275:17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
233:11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
175:22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
146:20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
119:20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
104:19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
3706:about the placing of the
3606:23:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
3567:18:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
3546:20:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3495:
3003:02:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
2794:08:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
2517:Help:Interwikimedia links
2192:hastily written prototype
1784:Support unhiding Wikinews
1627:20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
1586:05:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
1471:#Links to sister projects
1013:interlingual crosslinking
703:They weren't included in
502:13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
3708:Template:Expand language
3704:Templates for discussion
3266:Please do not modify it.
3023:Please do not modify it.
2781:Proposal at Viilage Pump
2773:09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
2690:05:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
2521:Help:Interlanguage links
2419:, for a merge proposal:
2395:Section merge discussion
2246:14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
2190:Shown to the right is a
2079:Please do not modify it.
1743:Please do not modify it.
1571:09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
1143:encyclopedia articles.
950:and common practice wrt
389:for depressing details)
3710:within articles, and a
3668:a bit odd at first and
3502:"Veitch, Henry Gordon"
2316:you with two questions:
1414:are less reliable than
1003:to sister projects and
670:Wikivoyage and Wikidata
471:s:Template:plain sister
3511:. London: John Murray.
2666:nominated for deletion
1549:Template talk:Wikidata
1517:external link policies
1347:
1302:
1139:appropriate links for
1034:other guideline pages:
842:
1720:Sister links template
1305:We embed images from
1301:
838:
42:of past discussions.
3628:, and comparable to
3418:Where to place links
2670:the template's entry
2500:// for wikibooks). -
2169:v:Coordinate systems
1800:Sister project links
1756:Sister project links
1483:Philip Baird Shearer
1420:Philip Baird Shearer
1360:Philip Baird Shearer
1135:sister projects are
320:for an example of a
3497:O'Byrne, William R.
3465:Giles E. Strangways
3451:Henry Gordon Veitch
3364:the ELs section.
1473:" of the guideline
1325:has ruled that the
1272:the monthly updates
1005:interlanguage links
223:next to the TOC. --
158:the article itself.
3760:Wikimedia projects
3396:and put it at the
2296:where I linked to
1744:
1331:Geneva Conventions
1303:
1131:existing pages at
689:What about them?
541:minimal set up of
3283:Duplication with
3225:
3126:as first choice,
3047:
3005:
2989:comment added by
2915:
2914:
2837:
2836:
2755:was referring to
2688:
2643:
2162:v:Vector calculus
2132:Physics equations
2064:
2019:
1978:
1933:
1921:
1902:
1880:
1863:
1811:
1785:
1768:
1742:
1601:Wikidata property
1477:and the section "
1404:User:SandyGeorgia
1311:Wikimedia Commons
1157:
1088:(see No. 1 above)
1027:
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3836:
3800:
3799:
3764:
3758:
3655:
3513:
3512:
3504:
3492:
3445:
3426:Two exceptions:
3395:
3249:
3244:
3219:
3173:
3167:
3163:
3157:
3145:
3114:
3043:
3025:
2943:if appropriate.
2935:
2934:
2906:
2902:
2888:
2887:
2881:
2861:
2857:
2856:
2828:
2824:
2810:
2809:
2803:
2754:
2740:
2712:
2704:
2703:
2684:
2678:
2673:
2660:
2659:
2644:
2641:
2637:
2635:
2602:
2572:
2525:Michael Bednarek
2495:
2485:
2476:
2470:
2469:
2454:
2412:
2404:
2403:
2219:
2136:w:electrostatics
2125:
2116:
2107:
2098:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2034:S a g a C i t y
2017:
2013:
1996:S a g a C i t y
1976:
1972:
1931:
1919:
1900:
1878:
1875:
1869:
1861:
1809:
1805:
1783:
1766:
1762:
1729:
1672:
1663:
1659:
1638:
1625:
1616:
1612:
1605:
1599:
1563:Michael Bednarek
1560:
1554:
1543:
1537:
1441:
1390:
1345:
1327:Common Article 3
1279:
1245:
1155:
1097:
1023:
963:
929:
893:
888:
861:
844:is at odds with
822:
817:
767:
733:
729:
728:
460:
454:
450:
444:
441:Templates like
329:
323:
286:
222:
216:
134:
128:
89:
83:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3844:
3843:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3835:
3834:
3833:
3818:
3816:Ai intelligence
3773:
3769:
3766:
3762:
3756:
3735:
3700:
3631:mother of pearl
3554:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3493:
3489:
3443:
3420:
3394:
3390:
3307:
3288:
3280:
3245:
3240:
3217:Sasuke Sarutobi
3171:
3165:
3161:
3155:
3021:
3011:
2977:
2972:
2941:reliable source
2932:
2904:
2900:
2885:
2879:
2854:
2852:
2826:
2822:
2807:
2801:
2783:
2750:
2738:
2713:
2710:
2708:
2701:
2697:
2687:
2682:
2676:
2657:
2654:
2639:
2633:
2631:
2618:
2600:
2570:
2493:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2480:
2463:
2452:
2413:
2410:
2408:
2401:
2397:
2354:Sasuke Sarutobi
2287:
2265:Sasuke Sarutobi
2258:Andrei Sakharov
2253:
2230:
2217:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2180:*-uses calculus
2155:v:Coulomb's Law
2152:w:Coulomb's law
2128:
2127:
2126:
2118:
2117:
2109:
2108:
2100:
2099:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2060:
2050:
2016:Paine Ellsworth
2015:
1992:
1975:Paine Ellsworth
1974:
1916:
1873:
1871:
1857:
1808:Paine Ellsworth
1807:
1796:Knowledge (XXG)
1779:
1765:Paine Ellsworth
1764:
1747:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1725:
1703:
1661:
1655:
1654:
1632:
1614:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1597:
1596:I have created
1594:
1558:
1552:
1545:
1541:
1535:
1439:
1388:
1346:
1340:
1277:
1243:
1095:
1043:, if necessary.
961:
927:
891:
884:
859:
820:
813:
765:
739:
726:
724:
672:
627:of an article.
603:
513:
494:Stuart.Jamieson
458:
452:
448:
442:
439:
378:
348:
327:
321:
284:
220:
214:
132:
126:
87:
81:
77:
75:Placement redux
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3842:
3840:
3822:14.139.120.130
3820:History of ai
3817:
3814:
3765:
3754:
3734:
3731:
3699:
3693:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3659:
3553:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3515:
3514:
3486:
3485:
3481:
3447:
3446:
3436:
3435:
3419:
3416:
3402:
3401:
3392:
3388:
3379:
3378:
3375:
3358:
3357:
3327:
3326:
3317:
3316:
3306:
3303:
3287:
3281:
3279:
3278:
3262:requested move
3256:
3255:
3254:
3229:
3201:
3184:
3149:
3119:
3118:
3099:
3089:
3052:
3033:
3032:
3018:requested move
3012:
3010:
3007:
2976:
2973:
2960:
2956:
2955:
2913:
2912:
2889:
2878:
2875:
2840:103.237.76.138
2835:
2834:
2811:
2800:
2797:
2782:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2736:
2720:
2699:
2696:
2693:
2680:
2653:
2650:
2627:
2626:
2617:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2598:
2581:
2568:
2471:
2465:
2462:
2459:
2450:
2433:
2432:
2399:
2396:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2377:Guy vandegrift
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2346:
2345:
2335:Guy vandegrift
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2324:
2318:
2317:
2312:
2311:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2252:
2249:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2174:
2167:
2160:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2130:
2129:
2120:
2119:
2111:
2110:
2102:
2101:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2087:
2084:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1960:
1959:
1942:
1941:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1890:
1866:
1865:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1834:
1817:
1788:
1787:
1778:
1775:
1748:
1739:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1679:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1544:
1532:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1412:other projects
1383:external links
1349:To argue that
1338:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1258:
1186:
1185:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1121:
1118:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1089:
1081:
1076:external links
1066:
1035:
1017:
993:
978:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
899:
898:
830:
829:
828:
827:
760:External links
738:
735:
722:
721:
720:
719:
671:
668:
667:
666:
602:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
550:
535:
512:
510:wikt:WT:SISTER
506:
505:
504:
438:
435:
434:
433:
377:
374:
363:David Göthberg
347:
344:
343:
342:
313:
312:
278:
277:
263:
260:
255:
254:
251:
248:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
180:
179:
178:
177:
159:
155:
149:
148:
122:
121:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3841:
3832:
3831:
3827:
3823:
3815:
3813:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3803:64.229.90.199
3797:
3793:
3789:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3772:
3761:
3755:
3753:
3752:
3748:
3744:
3740:
3732:
3730:
3729:
3725:
3721:
3717:
3713:
3709:
3705:
3698:
3694:
3692:
3691:
3687:
3683:
3679:
3675:
3671:
3667:
3658:
3653:
3650:
3647:
3646:
3638:
3633:
3632:
3627:
3626:
3625:sister cities
3621:
3617:
3613:
3609:
3608:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3595:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3578:
3574:
3571:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3564:
3560:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3534:
3533:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3510:
3509:
3503:
3498:
3491:
3488:
3484:
3480:
3476:
3474:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3453:
3452:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3417:
3415:
3414:
3410:
3406:
3399:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3376:
3373:
3372:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3363:
3355:
3354:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3345:
3340:
3337:
3335:
3334:
3325:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3315:
3312:
3311:
3310:
3304:
3302:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3286:
3282:
3277:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3258:
3257:
3253:
3250:
3248:
3243:
3237:
3233:
3230:
3228:
3223:
3218:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3202:
3200:
3196:
3192:
3188:
3185:
3183:
3180:
3177:
3170:
3160:
3153:
3150:
3148:
3143:
3140:
3137:
3136:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3120:
3117:
3112:
3109:
3106:
3105:
3097:
3093:
3090:
3087:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3051:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3038:
3031:
3029:
3024:
3019:
3014:
3013:
3008:
3006:
3004:
3000:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2982:
2974:
2971:
2967:
2963:
2959:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2923:
2919:
2910:
2907:parameter to
2898:
2894:
2890:
2883:
2882:
2876:
2874:
2873:
2869:
2865:
2862:No content --
2860:
2850:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2832:
2829:parameter to
2820:
2816:
2812:
2805:
2804:
2798:
2796:
2795:
2792:
2788:
2780:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2758:
2753:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2733:
2730:
2727:
2726:
2718:
2707:
2694:
2692:
2691:
2685:
2679:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2651:
2649:
2648:
2645:
2642:
2636:
2634:JasonCarswell
2624:
2623:
2622:
2615:
2605:
2596:
2593:
2590:
2588:
2579:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2566:
2563:
2560:
2558:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2491:
2479:
2475:
2460:
2458:
2457:
2448:
2445:
2442:
2440:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2418:
2407:
2394:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2331:
2325:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2314:
2313:
2310:uses the ..."
2309:
2305:
2304:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2289:
2288:
2281:
2280:in some cases
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2261:
2259:
2250:
2248:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2227:
2223:
2220:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2197:
2195:
2193:
2181:
2178:
2177:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2124:
2115:
2106:
2097:
2085:
2080:
2069:
2066:
2065:
2063:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2030:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2018:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1989:
1983:
1980:
1979:
1977:
1967:
1962:
1961:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1930:
1926:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1879:
1876:
1868:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1835:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1810:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1776:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1767:
1757:
1753:
1746:
1735:
1732:
1730:
1728:
1722:
1721:
1715:
1711:
1700:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1662:Pigsonthewing
1658:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1636:
1635:Pigsonthewing
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1615:Pigsonthewing
1611:
1602:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1557:
1550:
1540:
1533:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:Rolf H Nelson
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1344:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1300:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1090:
1087:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:" section or
1073:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
957:
953:
949:
938:
934:
930:
923:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
894:
889:
887:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
855:
851:
847:
841:
837:
835:
826:
823:
818:
816:
809:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
790:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
761:
757:
752:
748:
744:
736:
734:
732:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
628:
626:
622:
621:
616:
614:
609:
606:
600:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
569:70.24.250.103
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
548:
547:project pages
544:
540:
536:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
517:70.24.250.103
511:
508:Wiktionary's
503:
499:
495:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
457:
447:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
394:
390:
388:
383:
375:
373:
372:
368:
364:
359:
357:
352:
346:Secure server
345:
341:
337:
333:
326:
319:
316:Quiddity see
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
257:
256:
252:
249:
246:
242:
241:
234:
230:
226:
219:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
131:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
106:
105:
101:
97:
91:
86:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3819:
3767:
3743:Lembit Staan
3736:
3720:Hallucegenia
3701:
3677:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3663:
3644:
3636:
3629:
3623:
3619:
3615:
3611:
3593:
3588:
3584:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3555:
3538:WhatamIdoing
3519:
3506:
3490:
3482:
3477:
3454:
3448:
3437:
3421:
3405:Andy Dingley
3403:
3397:
3380:
3370:
3369:
3361:
3359:
3352:
3351:
3343:
3341:
3338:
3332:
3331:
3328:
3318:
3308:
3292:Andy Dingley
3289:
3265:
3259:
3246:
3241:
3235:
3231:
3222:push to talk
3211:
3203:
3186:
3151:
3134:
3127:
3123:
3103:
3091:
3069:
3062:
3053:
3036:
3034:
3022:
3015:
2985:— Preceding
2978:
2957:
2936:
2916:
2908:
2893:edit request
2858:
2851:
2838:
2830:
2815:edit request
2784:
2724:
2714:
2655:
2630:
2628:
2619:
2586:
2556:
2498:de:Apollo 11
2489:
2487:
2477:
2461:missing help
2438:
2434:
2414:
2301:
2291:
2279:
2262:
2254:
2231:
2198:
2191:
2189:
2186:
2179:
2171:
2164:
2157:
2134:
2078:
2057:
2056:
2028:
2012:
2011:
1993:
1971:
1970:
1965:
1886:
1882:
1870:
1860:
1837:Also support
1836:
1819:
1804:
1803:
1802:template. –
1799:
1795:
1791:
1782:
1761:
1760:
1749:
1740:
1726:
1717:
1670:Andy's edits
1666:Talk to Andy
1657:Andy Mabbett
1623:Andy's edits
1619:Talk to Andy
1610:Andy Mabbett
1595:
1547:Copied from
1546:
1499:
1371:
1348:
1320:
1304:
1263:SiobhanHansa
1212:WP:COPYRIGHT
1180:SiobhanHansa
1174:high-quality
1173:
1171:
1145:WhatamIdoing
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1084:
1069:
1041:lead section
1038:
951:
945:
885:
879:
875:
843:
839:
831:
814:
807:
740:
730:
723:
691:WhatamIdoing
673:
656:WhatamIdoing
652:MOS:APPENDIX
635:
632:
629:
624:
619:
618:
617:
612:
610:
607:
604:
538:
514:
440:
395:
391:
379:
360:
353:
349:
279:
244:
167:WhatamIdoing
162:
96:WhatamIdoing
92:
78:
65:
43:
37:
3645:SMcCandlish
3612:brotherhood
3457:Noël Coward
3274:move review
3135:SMcCandlish
3104:SMcCandlish
3094:: Merge to
3028:move review
2918:51.39.40.51
2752:SMcCandlish
2725:SMcCandlish
2715:Please see
2587:SMcCandlish
2557:SMcCandlish
2439:SMcCandlish
2415:Please see
2200:editable.--
2176:wikt:vector
1914:Discussion:
1727:I, JethroBT
1505:Cold Fusion
473:such as on
243:You said: "
187:Placing an
85:wikicommons
36:This is an
3483:References
3432:Wikisource
3428:Wiktionary
3350:We should
3072:: Move to
2901:|answered=
2823:|answered=
2749:I believe
1990:Compromise
1841:Damotclese
1479:Guidelines
1315:wikisource
982:Guidelines
907:J Readings
782:Stuttering
751:Stuttering
543:help pages
489:layout MOS
446:Wikisource
325:wikisource
218:wikisource
163:at the top
130:wikisource
3716:WP:MOSSIS
3697:WP:MOSSIS
3577:associate
3270:talk page
3176:Netoholic
3037:not moved
2937:Not done:
2864:DannyS712
2664:has been
2492:. (like:
2144:b:vectors
2140:v:Vectors
1534:Point of
1509:WP:LAYOUT
1434:WT:LAYOUT
1356:WP:LAYOUT
1240:policy.
1051:WP:LAYOUT
956:at LAYOUT
948:WP:LAYOUT
834:WP:LAYOUT
756:WP:LAYOUT
743:WP:LAYOUT
418:WP:NAVBOX
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
3712:proposal
3682:Facts707
3559:Alialiac
3499:(1849).
3389:position
3272:or in a
3191:Ammarpad
3159:See also
3128:Option A
3124:Option C
3092:Option C
3070:Option B
3063:Option A
3041:Dekimasu
2999:contribs
2987:unsigned
2979:Pls see
2958:Myanmar
2859:Not done
2791:LukeSurl
2423:Most of
2202:guyvan52
2148:w:Vector
1883:category
1556:Wikidata
1539:Wikidata
1072:see also
1055:WP:WIAFA
1021:erachima
1016:linking.
876:possible
785:problem,
737:Disputed
709:Quiddity
625:sections
583:Quiddity
554:Quiddity
399:Franamax
382:reverted
267:Quiddity
259:logical.
3784:history
3670:brother
3616:mankind
3598:Pi zero
3585:sibling
3573:Partner
3463:) and
3362:usually
2962:Mgnyiny
2945:Altamel
2478:Invalid
1949:Pi zero
1925:Samsara
1894:Samsara
1824:CSJJ104
1820:Support
1792:Support
1578:Kaldari
1513:WP:ELNO
1511:trumps
1503:to the
1440:Georgia
1389:Georgia
1329:of the
1278:Georgia
1244:Georgia
1096:Georgia
1065:issues.
962:Georgia
928:Georgia
860:Georgia
766:Georgia
456:Commons
285:Georgia
200:usenet.
197:threads
39:archive
3674:cousin
3666:sister
3637:sister
3620:sister
3594:change
3589:sister
3236:per se
3232:Oppose
3204:Oppose
3187:Oppose
3152:Oppose
2739:ⱷ<
2640:(talk)
2539:DePiep
2502:DePiep
2490:prefix
2238:Sadads
1683:DePiep
1641:DePiep
1475:Layout
1317:. Eg:
1137:always
1086:event.
997:layout
986:boldly
892:(talk)
821:(talk)
637:Lx 121
193:usenet
3792:watch
3788:links
3768:FYI,
3242:Davey
2905:|ans=
2891:This
2827:|ans=
2813:This
2765:Daask
2734:: -->
2677:Godsy
2580:twice
2523:. --
2218:Gizza
2061:Paine
1438:Sandy
1387:Sandy
1379:WP:RS
1276:Sandy
1242:Sandy
1234:WP:EL
1230:WP:EL
1216:WP:EL
1208:WP:EL
1204:WP:EL
1200:WP:RS
1168:WP:EL
1125:WP:EL
1094:Sandy
1063:WP:RS
1047:WP:EL
1009:links
1001:links
960:Sandy
926:Sandy
858:Sandy
854:WP:EL
850:WP:RS
764:Sandy
747:WP:EL
479:Doug.
380:I've
318:GCIII
283:Sandy
16:<
3826:talk
3807:talk
3796:logs
3780:talk
3776:edit
3747:talk
3724:talk
3686:talk
3602:talk
3581:must
3575:and
3563:talk
3542:talk
3527:talk
3469:diff
3461:diff
3449:eg:
3430:and
3409:talk
3393:left
3319:vs
3296:talk
3247:2010
3195:talk
3169:Main
2995:talk
2991:Moxy
2966:talk
2949:talk
2922:talk
2868:talk
2844:talk
2789:. --
2769:talk
2683:CONT
2543:talk
2529:talk
2506:talk
2381:talk
2358:talk
2339:talk
2269:talk
2242:talk
2206:talk
2196:.
2038:talk
2000:talk
1966:need
1953:talk
1877:4
1874:FDMS
1845:talk
1828:talk
1777:Yes:
1687:talk
1645:talk
1582:talk
1567:talk
1525:talk
1487:talk
1445:Talk
1424:talk
1418:? --
1394:Talk
1375:WP:V
1364:talk
1341:BBC
1321:The
1283:Talk
1249:Talk
1238:WP:V
1210:and
1202:and
1196:WP:V
1149:talk
1101:Talk
1061:and
1059:WP:V
1049:and
1025:talk
990:diff
967:Talk
933:Talk
922:WP:V
911:talk
886:Tony
880:hate
865:Talk
852:and
846:WP:V
815:Tony
808:know
798:talk
794:Slp1
771:Talk
745:and
731:Done
713:talk
695:talk
680:talk
676:Ziko
660:talk
641:talk
605:hi;
587:talk
573:talk
558:talk
545:and
539:very
521:talk
498:talk
451:and
427:talk
423:Moxy
403:talk
387:here
367:talk
336:talk
306:talk
290:Talk
271:talk
229:talk
171:talk
142:talk
115:talk
100:talk
3676:or
3654:😼
3523:PBS
3398:end
3371:not
3353:not
3344:may
3212:are
3144:😼
3113:😼
2903:or
2895:to
2825:or
2817:to
2706:FYI
2601:ⱷ≼
2597:≽ⱷ҅
2571:ⱷ≼
2567:≽ⱷ҅
2453:ⱷ≼
2449:≽ⱷ҅
2406:FYI
1855:No:
1664:);
1617:);
1519:."
1377:or
1228:at
1141:all
1133:all
1129:all
1083:3)
1068:2)
1037:1)
620:AND
332:PBS
302:PBS
225:PBS
138:PBS
111:PBS
3828:)
3809:)
3794:|
3790:|
3786:|
3782:|
3778:|
3763:}}
3757:{{
3749:)
3741:.
3726:)
3688:)
3680:?
3642:—
3614:,
3604:)
3565:)
3544:)
3529:)
3505:.
3475:.
3411:)
3298:)
3264:.
3197:)
3172:}}
3166:{{
3162:}}
3156:{{
3132:—
3101:—
3084:,
3057:→
3045:よ!
3020:.
3001:)
2997:•
2983:.
2968:)
2951:)
2924:)
2909:no
2870:)
2846:)
2831:no
2771:)
2763:.
2735:ⱷ҅
2722:—
2709:–
2674:—
2584:—
2554:—
2545:)
2531:)
2508:)
2496:=
2482:–
2436:—
2427:→
2409:–
2383:)
2375:--
2360:)
2341:)
2271:)
2244:)
2208:)
2055:–
2040:)
2002:)
1955:)
1937:)
1935:FP
1929:FA
1906:)
1904:FP
1898:FA
1847:)
1830:)
1759:–
1723:.
1689:)
1668:;
1647:)
1621:;
1604:}}
1598:{{
1584:)
1569:)
1559:}}
1553:{{
1542:}}
1536:{{
1527:)
1489:)
1447:)
1426:)
1396:)
1366:)
1339:—
1285:)
1251:)
1198:,
1151:)
1103:)
969:)
935:)
913:)
867:)
848:,
800:)
773:)
715:)
697:)
682:)
662:)
643:)
613:US
589:)
575:)
560:)
523:)
500:)
459:}}
453:{{
449:}}
443:{{
429:)
405:)
369:)
361:--
338:)
328:}}
322:{{
308:)
292:)
273:)
231:)
221:}}
215:{{
173:)
144:)
136:--
133:}}
127:{{
117:)
102:)
88:}}
82:{{
3824:(
3805:(
3798:)
3774:(
3745:(
3722:(
3684:(
3652:¢
3649:☏
3600:(
3561:(
3540:(
3525:(
3467:(
3459:(
3444:]
3407:(
3391:=
3387:|
3294:(
3224:)
3220:(
3193:(
3179:@
3142:¢
3139:☏
3111:¢
3108:☏
3088:)
3080:(
2993:(
2964:(
2947:(
2920:(
2866:(
2842:(
2767:(
2737:ᴥ
2732:¢
2729:☏
2719:.
2686:)
2599:ᴥ
2595:¢
2592:☏
2589:☺
2569:ᴥ
2565:¢
2562:☏
2559:☺
2541:(
2527:(
2504:(
2494:]
2451:ᴥ
2447:¢
2444:☏
2441:☺
2431:.
2379:(
2356:(
2337:(
2267:(
2240:(
2204:(
2172:*
2165:*
2158:*
2036:(
1998:(
1951:(
1932:•
1927:(
1901:•
1896:(
1843:(
1826:(
1685:(
1660:(
1643:(
1637::
1633:@
1613:(
1580:(
1565:(
1523:(
1485:(
1443:(
1422:(
1392:(
1362:(
1281:(
1247:(
1147:(
1099:(
1078:.
992:)
965:(
931:(
909:(
863:(
796:(
769:(
711:(
693:(
678:(
658:(
639:(
585:(
571:(
556:(
519:(
496:(
425:(
401:(
365:(
334:(
304:(
288:(
269:(
247:"
227:(
169:(
140:(
113:(
98:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.