Template talk:Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wikipedia Watch[edit]

As we agreed to add Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, etc, I would suggest adding Wikipedia Watch for completeness - any objections? fish&karate 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to. Aside from a single Certain Page, the site is rarely if ever updated any more, and in any event is a tiny site (9 pages) consisting of one man's opinions, rather than a true "criticism site". I'd question the value of even keeping our article on it, to be honest. – iridescent 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well those aren't good reasons when all of these sorts of templates will add pages even if they're tiny one-sentence stubs and nothing else. The only valid reason I can see not to add it to the template is that the Wikipedia Watch has lots of outing on it and that's well iffy at best, but it's enough that I'm not going to chance editing this template to add it myself. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my comment? It's nothing to do with the Wikipedia page, it's the fact that aside from Hivemind, Wikipedia Watch consists of eight pages, none of which have been updated for months. – iridescent 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my comment addressed and rebutted all that. See the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for removal[edit]

The WikiZnanie link is completely mysterious to me. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia, other than Mediawiki software, and its article in Wikipedia is under question for notability and for not citing any sources.

The Interpedia link is quaint, but for a failed project, which doesn't even demonstrably show linkage to Wikipedia, it seems to be cluttering this template.

I understand how Veropedia was an important part of this list of related projects, but this particular project is suspended now (visit their "coming soon!" website to see). I suggest its removal, with no prejudice against restoration when the site becomes viable again.

The Wikiweise link is also questionable. Its article in Wikipedia is under question for notability and for not citing any sources. And Alexa.com ranks it as the world's 394,446th most popular website. What are we doing here? Creating a dumping ground, or a usefully crystallized set of links? -- 65.2.1.201 (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I support such a clean-up.--Kozuch (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This list still seems funny and incomplete. 209.117.47.251 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More articles to be included[edit]

Wikipedia CD Selection should be added to the group "Usage of content" (the group contains external stuffs that uses Wikipedia's content). Logo of Wikipedia and Wikipedia neologism are also relevant, isn't it? Thanks···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to Infobox in the first section of the template, but another editor objected, and I can understand that perspective. Is there another section of this template, that Infobox could be mentioned within (possibly along with the 2 items mentioned above)? Or is there another navbox that it might belong in? If not, no worries. (Maybe at a later time, when more RSs have realized that Google's Knowledge Graph is clearly mimicking us... ;) –Quiddity (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We could transmorgify "History" into "Cultural Impact" or similar and move both cn and neologism (and "in culture") there, but I'm not sure the other two would fit at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sister projects[edit]

What is the point of having links to the sister projects' articlces about Wikipedia? If they should really be there at all they should link to their respective Wikipedia article. But to me it feels like that's what {{Wikimedia Foundation}} is for... Skalman (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this is the way other templates do it too... I don't see the point, but I guess that's a much bigger discussion. Skalman (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly support having the sister project links. It helps the reader and other researchers and editors find additional information on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Redlink[edit]

There appears to be a redlink in the template -- should that be removed?

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised the article was deleted with so little discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Snow (attorney) (2nd nomination). Without an article the redlink should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)