![]() |
Template:Interlanguage link is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Template talk:Interlanguage link/Old version/Talk was copied or moved into Template talk:Interlanguage link with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This template ( Template:Interlanguage link multi) was considered for merging with Template:Interlanguage link on 2015 March 8. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
![]() | On 7 November 2016, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:Interlanguage link multi to Template:Interlanguage link. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have added a test case showing that when an English-language Wikipedia article does not exist, and the corresponding foreign-language article does not exist, the two-letter link to the foreign-language article shows as blue instead of the appropriate red. I think this is misleading and should be fixed. Is there a reason for this link to be blue? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
where the foreign link does not exist. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
SELECT DISTINCT iwl_title FROM iwlinks WHERE iwl_prefix="fr"
would list {{
ill}} targets but also direct links such as [[:fr:Exemple]], which we may or may not be interested in. For each language, we could put each resulting list into something that will filter for absent pages. That could be
PetScan to list extant pages and diff with the original list, or a diff with a full list of pages obtained from a frwp dump, or even preview a list of wikilinks such as *[[Jean Dupont]] on frwp and filter the resulting HTML keeping only classes denoting a redlink. Unfortunately, a change made a few years ago means that we can no longer join tables from two databases (e.g. enwiki_p and frwiki_p) directly in a single query. Beware that iwl_title has spaces converted to underscores, but the initial is not automatically capitalised (because some wikis such as Wiktionary have distinct pages for
apple and
Apple).
Certes (
talk)
19:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)I think allowing red-colored links in ill's for pages that already exist on en-wiki but are circular redirects with possibilities would improve the experience for both casual readers and experienced editors, including editor-translators.
Pretty often, I run into a situation where we're missing an article at English Wikipedia we ought to have, and the likely title is found in unlinked, plain text in several articles but nobody will add an {{
ill}} there in place of the plain text because the clear choice for the English article title is already a
MOS:CIRCULAR redirect (sometimes tagged "{{
R with possibilities}}") back to the same article. If we detect this case and permit a new param, say, |red=yes
, we could display a no-redirect link in red font to the user. The reader loses nothing by having red text there, as he is already reading the article the redirect links to. For ambitious bilingual editors who click the red link expecting to land at a blank page and ending up at the redirect-with-possibilities page instead, there will be a brief moment of
surprise, at which point the aha-reflex should kick in, and they'll realize that they need to simply usurp the redirect to start their new translation.
As a concrete example, I just added a couple of circular ill's to Savant syndrome, as we do not have an article on Autistic savants, but fr-wiki does, at Autisme savant (so does Arabic). But ' Autistic savant' is blue because it's a redirect, and I feel that blue is not helpful there, because it might encourage a casual reader to click it, leading to the confusing result of landing at the top of the same page they are reading due to the circular link; worse, it adds no additional knowledge or information, the whole purpose of following a wikilink. Seems like red would serve the reader much better by discouraging a click, as well as simultaneously serving the red link-savvy editor better as well, to encourage them to grow the encyclopedia.
What about the meaning of a red link; doesn't it specify that no page exists, period? Maybe not. Note that on the one hand, the first sentence of WP:Red link says that a red link "signifies that the linked-to page does not exist". However, the second sentence says, "Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.", which is exactly the point of the red link in the proposal. Finally, the first sentence of WP:RED says, "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it."—again, nothing there about the page existing in redirect form; rather, it talks about articles that should exist. Precisely the case here. So, WP:Red link is not categorical about the question of page existence, and in two out of the three quoted, top-of-page excerpts, they talk about subject and article existence. Seems to me there is plenty of wiggle room in the guideline, certainly enough for this edge case of a circular redirect in an {{ ill}}, a tiny, tiny proportion of all links. I read that as not standing in the way of this proposal, if there is consensus for it otherwise, as it would be of benefit to both readers and editors. Mathglot ( talk) 02:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Mathglot, you argue
WP:Red link is not categorical about the question of page existence, and in two out of the three quoted, top-of-page excerpts, they talk about subject and article existence.
Not sure how you arrive at this, so let me make an assertion and let you explain exactly where this assertion is false: WP:Red link discuss links of various sorts, but one thing remains constant: whenever a red link is discussed, it always presupposes that there is no page of any sort at the destination, i.e. you always get the "create new article" response. I realize YOU want to make an exception here (retaining the red color even though the destination exists), but first let's figure out what the actual WP:Red link guideline says. Cheers
CapnZapp (
talk)
19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the English content (albeit not its own article but a section of another with a redirect) is far more sourced and detailed, is this a proper application of this template? I've never seen it used like this. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill}}
links to local links, deals with these constructs. On balance, I would not use {{ill}}
that way. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill|Nick Ut#The Terror of War|lt=The Terror of War|display=yes|de|The Terror of War}}
where{{ill|The Terror of War|de}}
->
The Terror of War does the same thing. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
11:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
display=
or preserve=
. In either case, the explicit use of the section name alerts editors that the local link is a redirect to a section rather than being the name of an existing article, thereby saving some head-scratching.
Fabrickator (
talk)
16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
|preserve=yes
? At least, that's the only practical difference as I can see. Assuming you can argue why this particular ill would merit preservation, of course. Thanks
CapnZapp (
talk)
19:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
|preserve=yes
but it already has |display=yes
, so the '"preserve" parameter would be redundant.|preserve=yes
to Primerfac's suggestion. So the proposed change from what I had done was to drop the piped link (along with the |lt=The Terror of War
). You have edited the
page after Primefac's edit so I'll assume you aren't contesting it. So the case is closed: we agree there is little value in bypassing redirects for ills, and in fact, that going through a redirect is valuable, since 1) it means the reader isn't denied learning about a full article should one be developed and 2) it carries the potential for the ill to disappear once a full article at the redirect title is created (as long as we avoid the use of |display=
or |preserve=
)
CapnZapp (
talk)
09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill}}
should link to local redirects and to the interlanguage article was established after lengthy discussions in 2016. Circular redirects are not limited to those caused by {{ill}}
, but are infrequent. That's where, for registered users,
User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and
User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css are helpful. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
it's decided to create bar as a redirect which happens to go to foo ... to make it more interesting, have it redirect either to foo or to a section of foo.the example would better have represented the case discussed. CapnZapp ( talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
it's a valid working link, so you righteously add the link. So sorry, you just broke it.I do not follow your explanation of this (or even very clearly what it is you are proposing as an alternative). If I'm understanding correctly, you seem to want to have a hard-coded link to a section rather than using a redirect in the ill template. If your concern is that the redirect target might change -- using a hard-coded section link has very similar issue -- the section headings are often edited and even the content from a section of one article can be moved into a completely different article. I don't see how your approach is any improvement. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
when the section is specified in a redirect, it works okay from every other page but breaks when it's used on just the one page that the target redirects to.You seem to be assuming that editors frequently go around changing the target of redirects to some random topic. I'd argue that is far less likely than editors inadvertently altering a section heading. older ≠ wiser 16:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
We need a cleanup template that could be used in cases were we have links in text to other language Wikipedias like here. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:Interlanguage link is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Template talk:Interlanguage link/Old version/Talk was copied or moved into Template talk:Interlanguage link with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This template ( Template:Interlanguage link multi) was considered for merging with Template:Interlanguage link on 2015 March 8. The result of the discussion was "merge". |
![]() | On 7 November 2016, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:Interlanguage link multi to Template:Interlanguage link. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have added a test case showing that when an English-language Wikipedia article does not exist, and the corresponding foreign-language article does not exist, the two-letter link to the foreign-language article shows as blue instead of the appropriate red. I think this is misleading and should be fixed. Is there a reason for this link to be blue? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
where the foreign link does not exist. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
SELECT DISTINCT iwl_title FROM iwlinks WHERE iwl_prefix="fr"
would list {{
ill}} targets but also direct links such as [[:fr:Exemple]], which we may or may not be interested in. For each language, we could put each resulting list into something that will filter for absent pages. That could be
PetScan to list extant pages and diff with the original list, or a diff with a full list of pages obtained from a frwp dump, or even preview a list of wikilinks such as *[[Jean Dupont]] on frwp and filter the resulting HTML keeping only classes denoting a redlink. Unfortunately, a change made a few years ago means that we can no longer join tables from two databases (e.g. enwiki_p and frwiki_p) directly in a single query. Beware that iwl_title has spaces converted to underscores, but the initial is not automatically capitalised (because some wikis such as Wiktionary have distinct pages for
apple and
Apple).
Certes (
talk)
19:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)I think allowing red-colored links in ill's for pages that already exist on en-wiki but are circular redirects with possibilities would improve the experience for both casual readers and experienced editors, including editor-translators.
Pretty often, I run into a situation where we're missing an article at English Wikipedia we ought to have, and the likely title is found in unlinked, plain text in several articles but nobody will add an {{
ill}} there in place of the plain text because the clear choice for the English article title is already a
MOS:CIRCULAR redirect (sometimes tagged "{{
R with possibilities}}") back to the same article. If we detect this case and permit a new param, say, |red=yes
, we could display a no-redirect link in red font to the user. The reader loses nothing by having red text there, as he is already reading the article the redirect links to. For ambitious bilingual editors who click the red link expecting to land at a blank page and ending up at the redirect-with-possibilities page instead, there will be a brief moment of
surprise, at which point the aha-reflex should kick in, and they'll realize that they need to simply usurp the redirect to start their new translation.
As a concrete example, I just added a couple of circular ill's to Savant syndrome, as we do not have an article on Autistic savants, but fr-wiki does, at Autisme savant (so does Arabic). But ' Autistic savant' is blue because it's a redirect, and I feel that blue is not helpful there, because it might encourage a casual reader to click it, leading to the confusing result of landing at the top of the same page they are reading due to the circular link; worse, it adds no additional knowledge or information, the whole purpose of following a wikilink. Seems like red would serve the reader much better by discouraging a click, as well as simultaneously serving the red link-savvy editor better as well, to encourage them to grow the encyclopedia.
What about the meaning of a red link; doesn't it specify that no page exists, period? Maybe not. Note that on the one hand, the first sentence of WP:Red link says that a red link "signifies that the linked-to page does not exist". However, the second sentence says, "Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.", which is exactly the point of the red link in the proposal. Finally, the first sentence of WP:RED says, "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it."—again, nothing there about the page existing in redirect form; rather, it talks about articles that should exist. Precisely the case here. So, WP:Red link is not categorical about the question of page existence, and in two out of the three quoted, top-of-page excerpts, they talk about subject and article existence. Seems to me there is plenty of wiggle room in the guideline, certainly enough for this edge case of a circular redirect in an {{ ill}}, a tiny, tiny proportion of all links. I read that as not standing in the way of this proposal, if there is consensus for it otherwise, as it would be of benefit to both readers and editors. Mathglot ( talk) 02:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Mathglot, you argue
WP:Red link is not categorical about the question of page existence, and in two out of the three quoted, top-of-page excerpts, they talk about subject and article existence.
Not sure how you arrive at this, so let me make an assertion and let you explain exactly where this assertion is false: WP:Red link discuss links of various sorts, but one thing remains constant: whenever a red link is discussed, it always presupposes that there is no page of any sort at the destination, i.e. you always get the "create new article" response. I realize YOU want to make an exception here (retaining the red color even though the destination exists), but first let's figure out what the actual WP:Red link guideline says. Cheers
CapnZapp (
talk)
19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the English content (albeit not its own article but a section of another with a redirect) is far more sourced and detailed, is this a proper application of this template? I've never seen it used like this. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill}}
links to local links, deals with these constructs. On balance, I would not use {{ill}}
that way. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
07:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill|Nick Ut#The Terror of War|lt=The Terror of War|display=yes|de|The Terror of War}}
where{{ill|The Terror of War|de}}
->
The Terror of War does the same thing. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
11:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
display=
or preserve=
. In either case, the explicit use of the section name alerts editors that the local link is a redirect to a section rather than being the name of an existing article, thereby saving some head-scratching.
Fabrickator (
talk)
16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
|preserve=yes
? At least, that's the only practical difference as I can see. Assuming you can argue why this particular ill would merit preservation, of course. Thanks
CapnZapp (
talk)
19:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
|preserve=yes
but it already has |display=yes
, so the '"preserve" parameter would be redundant.|preserve=yes
to Primerfac's suggestion. So the proposed change from what I had done was to drop the piped link (along with the |lt=The Terror of War
). You have edited the
page after Primefac's edit so I'll assume you aren't contesting it. So the case is closed: we agree there is little value in bypassing redirects for ills, and in fact, that going through a redirect is valuable, since 1) it means the reader isn't denied learning about a full article should one be developed and 2) it carries the potential for the ill to disappear once a full article at the redirect title is created (as long as we avoid the use of |display=
or |preserve=
)
CapnZapp (
talk)
09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ill}}
should link to local redirects and to the interlanguage article was established after lengthy discussions in 2016. Circular redirects are not limited to those caused by {{ill}}
, but are infrequent. That's where, for registered users,
User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and
User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css are helpful. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
it's decided to create bar as a redirect which happens to go to foo ... to make it more interesting, have it redirect either to foo or to a section of foo.the example would better have represented the case discussed. CapnZapp ( talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
it's a valid working link, so you righteously add the link. So sorry, you just broke it.I do not follow your explanation of this (or even very clearly what it is you are proposing as an alternative). If I'm understanding correctly, you seem to want to have a hard-coded link to a section rather than using a redirect in the ill template. If your concern is that the redirect target might change -- using a hard-coded section link has very similar issue -- the section headings are often edited and even the content from a section of one article can be moved into a completely different article. I don't see how your approach is any improvement. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
when the section is specified in a redirect, it works okay from every other page but breaks when it's used on just the one page that the target redirects to.You seem to be assuming that editors frequently go around changing the target of redirects to some random topic. I'd argue that is far less likely than editors inadvertently altering a section heading. older ≠ wiser 16:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
We need a cleanup template that could be used in cases were we have links in text to other language Wikipedias like here. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)