On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:21, Charles Matthews wrote: > Carcharoth wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews >> <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> Samuel Klein wrote: >>>> * interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles >>>> about the >>>> same topic >>> On the final point, the "poster" style of interwiki link to sister >>> projects begins to look dated, at least to me. It obviously doesn't >>> scale well; or in other words it puts the onus on the project >>> linked to, >>> to organise the material relevant to one WP topic, in such a way >>> that a >>> single link can carry the whole weight. Innovation is at least >>> possible. >> >> That's an interesting point. I presume you mean wikisource here. For >> Commons and Wikiquote (I'm unsure about the other projects) it is >> fairly easy to have a corresponding page or category or both. If the >> Wikipedia article is a person who is an author, then a wikisource >> page >> is possible, and if the Wikipedia page is about a book or other >> published work that could be on wikisource, then again a single link, >> page or category is usually possible. But there are some articles >> where this system does fall down. I presume the place to put links to >> editorially selected wikisource pages would be in the external links, >> or as a courtesy link in a citation. >> > Yes, Wikisource is on my mind in particular, but there are a couple of > points here. Some work could be done (perhaps I'm not up-to-date, > though) with stacking those poster boxes more successfully: they are > more eye-catching than really convenient.
I'm really not fond of the poster boxes in their current form at all. It's far too easy for them to clutter up a page. As a suggestion, what about something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-foot_telescope Look at the infobox. While you're at the page, also look at the bottom - that's my preferred way of dealing with external links. ;-) That doesn't solve the issue of multiple links being needed, but IMO it does make the links look a lot better and in a more relevant place. I would expect that most multiple links to Wikisource would/ should be in the references, though - although the same probably wouldn't be true for wikinews links. > There are three kinds of > template: poster, citation and attribution, and it is really more > elegant to use the citation links in the external links section, if > more > than one is relevant. The Wikisource category system is not really > developed enough to do the task right now; its dab system likewise > (and > it is supposed to disambiguate texts, really); and the Wikisource: > namespace plays a surrogate role for a "topic" namespace (rather than > being just project pages). But enough of our troubles. I think that's just Wikisource's growing pains; over time I think it will probably end up with more disambig pages and also topic pages. But perhaps that's just my viewpoint as I'm used to Wikipedia. > There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking > here. > If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were > done by > transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages > organised by both language and topic?), how could that be implemented, > and how could it relate to efforts to make hard-copy bibliography more > modular? That sounds like a way of adding confusion to those editing a page, when they find that part of the page is stored somewhere else completely. Interwiki (as in language) links seem to be dealt with well nowadays by robots; expanding that to include wikisource links might be good. External links are best done as project-specific ones IMO, though. Mike _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l