Template talk:Interwikidiscreet

Excellent template
Adam and Cyg. You have done an excellent job on this template. Wondering whether you had more ideas ahead or not? One thing that I could see that we could do is to actually utilise the template within header, so the links format could be used in situ without specifically calling the template separately. It would still be the separate template, just allow the addition of the functions, especially as you have standardised their parameters. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the thinking, that the header handles the sisterlinks in the same way as the author template. This template was put in a FT, a blatant bit of advertising for what is not a new idea, so I duplicated this to Plain sister to develop it further. I removed a suffix that seems unnecessary, "_link", so it operates in the same way as Author. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that we should proceed to look at whether the template should be embedded into header?
 * Commented re _link on that template. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to bundle it into the header, perhaps others will identify something I haven't thought of. This format is a compromise to the sister's usual display as a box floated to the right, but if there is a reason to maintain the _link I dont see it - what else could it be? There are dozens of ways to make sister links, even the behaviour of link varies from site to site; at Commons it creates a link in the sidebar, like the language links here?!   We have a header that displays the content about the work, I think it would have the advantage of prompting users to reinforce sisterlink connections and place content where it is appropriate. I consider this a convenience thing, I imagine there will be examples where a sentence does it better. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Embedding either of the sister link templates in header seems like a good idea. (Although I'm not sure how you would like to do that; just copy-and-paste the code or something else?)
 * I only used "_link" for the parameters because the Author template did that. Losing that suffix makes the parameters a little more elegant and the use is largely obvious (even without an explanation in the documentation).  The only argument against this would be keeping the parameters consistant across Wikisource (both Author and Header).  Then again, Plain sister is consistant with the standalone sister templates. (eg. the template    becomes the parameter  |wikipedia=Tamerlane and Other Poems  which is almost identical bar a few characters.)
 * I'd say try the Plain sister version in Header and modify it later based on any comments or problems as they occur (which should still be manageable early in the addition's lifetime, assuming that it would have to be done manually). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pathoschild said he would recommend straight, etc. sans _link and not worry about anything that he did that isn't active. As you have used that elsewhere, I would agree with your summation that we should standardise on such. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing around in my sandboxes and everything seems to work. If you want to go ahead with implementing this, the line in header that reads: | needs to be changed to read: | Which will call as a subtemplate with all the correct parameters. I've also changed so that it won't display anything at all if none of the parameters are called; this will prevent empty boxes with just "See also" appearing on every header on Wikisource. (That bit took a while to figure out before I realised the (relatively obvious) method of doing it.) I haven't found any bugs in the sandbox version (which are sandbox equivalent of header and that version implemented with parameters) but this will cause a lot of problems if I'm wrong so more testing might be necessary. How do you want to proceed? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At this stage I would suggest let us implement it as a standalone template, and we can move to the next phase at a later time if we so choose. For the moment let us keep it simpler. I will have a look at the internals of your handiwork at a later stage today. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, at the moment we just want a copy of the template that currently exists in my aandbox: A copy of the header template with the plain sister template attached as a sub-template (not directly built in to the header code). Is that correct?  If so, what would be a good name for this new header template? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this styling in a Sandbox, kind of what I was aiming for. The text and icon work for me, much less ambiguous. This link set was in the Author header, where 'next' might appear in a text headers, so I had been using the annotation section. The con is the creation of empty space near the top left of the page, for this reason I also considered having the result as unformatted - a note appearing at left. When viewed with icons and labels it probably doesn't need separating from other annotation, if annotation is still needed after linking those sites.

Speaking of discreet, the other interwikis, the language links, should appear elswhere, or maybe these sisterlinks moved to the same location. I favour the former, the sidebar automatically creates general links - interlang. links are added manually and specific to the page. I also favour the "listen" templates getting incorporated. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)