This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic 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, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia

Please don't add this on top of language pages, that's needless spam. Rather, it should be added to the external links section. --Joy [shallot] 16:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hullo! Coming to the placement of the template, please don't go pushing the template to the bottom on each language article, just 'cos few of us here have signed it to be so. It might be sorta 'spam' for few languages... but it serves a great purpose for others being on the top. Just go by the context. And don't be too generic.--H P Nadig 02:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why it would ever need to be on top. When someone goes to look at a page describing a language in the English Wikipedia, they expect to see a description of it, in English. This link will provide them with an example how the language looks in writing, but it will not help them understand much about it (unless they have a universal translator embedded in their frontal lobe, which is, well, unlikely :). The English-language content on the page is primary, this kind of a link should follow after it. --Joy [shallot] 09:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok, the above comment is a cut down and edited version of my comment that was below and was pasted here. (courtesy: Circeus). So, you know what to infer. Now, let me put some light on why the interwiki helps more being on top or atleast *near-top*. A language which has a wikipedia of its own would sound more significant - all the time, and the first questions one would probably get about the language like "whats the script?, how does it look?, is it a significant one? etc.." would be answered instantly on visiting the language wikipedia.

The English article about the language is a substub if it doesn't explain the script, show a single example, or note anything about the language's significance. I don't think that the focus needs to be on redirecting people elsewhere in such cases - instead we should fix the woefully inadequate English article.

BTW, the reader doesn't necessarily become enlightened about the script from reading the language Wikipedia - for example if I, your typical Latin-only reader, went instantly over to any number of Wikipedias written in non-Latin scripts after visiting their description here, I would not attain any knowledge other than "it's some sort of script that is incomprehensible to me". Whereas, if I were to continue reading the English article and examined the list of characters, and/or the explanation of word formation in this language, I would actually get a grasp of what that language is like.

So, like I said, this link should exist, but it can not and should not replace or take precedence over a decent article in this Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot]

And it probably is a step ahead in getting familiarised with the language than just reading the description. I think a lot of wikipedians here who came to the language wikipedias that way agree to this one. and some of my fellow wikipedians like User:Nickshanks were even interested in learning kannada. ask him from where he got to it? from the kannada page!. It need not be a "universal translator embedded in their frontal lobe", but just the aspiration and curiosity for the new language! point 2. The people who're already familiar with the language might not reach until the last line (all of us don't have the same time to go through the complete article all the time, do we?), even with greater curiosity. If kept within easy - sightable range, there are more chances of them landing on the language wikipedia for the language they know, and start contributing, on knowing about it. Since a large number of them do come via english wikipedia, and the traffic that en wikipedia gets, this is justified, too.

I suppose the second point is valid, although I can't help but doubt the ability and/or interest of people to usefully contribute to encyclopedia articles if they can't even be bothered to skim over them. --Joy [shallot]

And overall, you're not *spamming*. (This is no *ad* or *external link*. open your eyes, its another mediawiki project!) Instead, you're helping mediawiki projects grow by pushing them strongly! no bad ideals here! after all, it gets visitors more involved. It serves a very good purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong. cheers, --H P Nadig 21:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when I was using the term "spam" WRT these links at the top, I meant it in the generic meaning of "unsolicited messages aimed at self-promotion". It wasn't meant to be overly disparaging, but still negative enough. --Joy [shallot]

Why do we need a blanket policy on whether it should be at the top or the bottom? It is certainly not spam - wikipedias in all languages serve the same purpose, and contributors in one language are not "self-promoting" - they have no personal motives, obviously. Also, if it would be spam at the top, it would be spam at the bottom too. Conversely, since you accept that it is not spam at the bottom, it is not spam at the top either. It achieves the same purpose wherever it is.

Personally, I don't think the issue is big enough to have a "policy" on it. I can see why it would help some languages if it were to be at the top. This is true for languages which have just started their own wikipedias, which means that not many people who speak the language are aware that there is a wiki in that language yet (that situation is not as uncommon as it sounds, there are a lot of wikis with less than 100 articles, and I know from experience that people are not always aware that they have a wiki in their language). A prominent notice at the top will help them get contributors, and I don't see why we should stop it...

As I said, instead of having a blanket policy, we can leave it open. It is really not that big of an issue to insist that it should be at the bottom. --ashwatha 20:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bigger wikis are almost all mentionned on the main page. In the case of 80% of small wikis, the articles are alrerady short enough that it is hard to miss the Interwiki template, especially with the various articles that are 2 paragraphs stubs. Having extended the use of Interwiki to all languages listed at Metawiki, I should know what I'm talking about. I think the main idea here is to decide on having a consistent location for {{Interwiki}} in longer articles, especially considering that in many cases, it causes the {{Language}} template to be disgracefully moved toward the middle of the page (though that would rather tend to indicate introductory paragraphs are too short).--Circeus 21:07, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The template still need som reworking. As is, it shows an overwhelming tendency to push existing Language templates left, causing the area available for text to be dramatically reduced. Can be circumvented by placing the first section between the templates. Or at the bottom. I am not sure what was the final consensus on it.--Circeus 07:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

This template should be placed at the bottom, under external links--Jiang 08:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, I've just spent 2 hours, moving them from bottom to top (But then I'd've spent the same amount moving them from top to bottom XD). Oh well, I'll put themm back at the bottom later. It's 4:00 in the morning here. I need sleep. --Circeus 09:52, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Done, all the pages have had it moved to the External Link section, removing any previous link to the wiki in the process. Exception is Avar language, lacking an appropriate location to move the template to -_-;; --Circeus 04:52, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, Jiang and Circeus. —Michael Z. 05:08, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Just finished adding the template to all pages on the MetaWiki list. Need sleep now -_- --Circeus 07:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Should not Template:InterWiki have a closing </div> after "|}" (</table&gt)? --WikiBorg, 2005-01-17 07:22 +0100

Can I know what the real intention was behind this edit? :) link Looks like you don't really seem to like the mention of 'kannada' wikipedia on the 'kannada' page. --H P Nadig 01:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look, you'll see that I've simply moved the Interwiki box to the "External links" section, which is the location it belongs to according to Interwiki's Talk page --Circeus 01:17, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

If you observe carefully, thats just an opinion from one of the wikipedians to put it in external links section. In this context though, I believe, if placed down below, It is as good as not having it on the page. :) But thats not the only thing. You have also seen to it that the link to it in "See also" has vanished. I would recommend leaving a note in the talk page before erasing something... It would make less sense to keep changing back.--H P Nadig 01:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've spent 2 hours putting/moving interwiki templates. The template was proposed for deletion because it was considered inappropriate at the top of pages (among things). There was no reason whatsoever to have both a See also link when the Interwiki box was fairly prominent in the lower parts of the page. If you consider that location for the template inappropriate (after considering the question, i came to conclude it was), you should idscuss it over at its talk page. --Circeus 01:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It would be a stupid thing first to remove it, and then ask to participate in a long-lasting discussion about it... I just don't seem to get the idea. There have been such endless talks recently, and I don't fancy getting in one, Thank you. For this language, atleast, can't we leave the template alone and think of some constructive additions rather than just push templates to the bottom? The template is there for a good purpose. Please just make sure you leave a comment in the respective article's talk page before pushing it again to the bottom and removing any links that serve a good purpose. --H P Nadig 02:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh my. Most evidently I very badly worded my previous comment. The template was proposed for deletion and kept with a complete reformatting and the decision (I believe) not to put it at the top of pages anymore, than the discussion related to it was archived on it's talk page. I kept it at the top only of page that were substubs or didn't have an actual "External links" section. I took the liberty of moving your comment at the talk page in a more appropriate position and deleting the inappropriate parts. Really sorry for any inconvenients. --Circeus 03:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds irrational. whats going on? why did you remove my vote off? --H P Nadig 17:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because the vote has closed (It is an archive that is kept at Template_talk:InterWiki) and the template was kept. I mentionned the template was proposed to deletion, I did not say it was currently on the list, which is at Templates for deletion.

But that shouldn't conclude that the interwiki should go to bottom in all the language articles. The issue couldn't possibly close with the poll for deletion. Lets have a new poll and invite all the language wikipedia maintainers this time over, I believe not many even knew about the proposition to move it to the bottom. Please don't take pre-emptive conclusions and make the changes. I see that the interwiki that was moved to top was moved back to bottom again on Kannada. Where is this taking it? --H P Nadig 18:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not touch to Kannada again and from now on, I will not consider myself concerned with any problem you might have with other editing "your" pages. Joy point out "The only problem, IMHO, is that the author intended for it to be placed at the top of each article, which is definitely spam. I think that we should simply conclude that the notices should be moved off of the tops of pages and keep the template, near the bottom", and if you read the voters comment closely, you'll notice there were several agreers. Further discussion belongs not on my talk page but on InterWiki's. You might want to make a request for comments before going straight to a survey. I will be copying this discussion to Interwiki's talk page so that others can contribute. --Circeus 18:27, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Its rather childish on your part to say "problem you might have with other editing *your* pages". I would've done probably more if I were having such a feeling. I'm just concerned only 'cos I'm one of the maintainers of Kannada wikipedia and think that the interwiki there serves a really good purpose.

I'm not denying there are people who agree to the placement of interwiki at the bottom... I'm just saying that there are people too who would like to see that on the top.I think this can be put to discussion and solved. Just let us make way for a discussion involving everyone concerned. cheers, --H P Nadig 20:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Halló! I made a list about Template:InterWiki @ xx.wikixxxx at commons:User:Gangleri/sandbox/Template:InterWiki. I am puzzeled about lowecase and capital "W" in "InterWiki". So far I identified only fr:Template:InterWiki and sv:Template:InterWiki with lowercase "w" ("Interwiki"). Is there a reason for this? Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 20:52, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

this doesn't seem to do anything. Does it? MarSch 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pervents the template from being printed. Nobody wants an interwiki box on his printed copy. Relevant bug --logixoul 12:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and what about

clear: right; 

? -MarSch 14:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#flow-control --logixoul 12:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and what about

spacing: 1px;

? -MarSch 14:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No spacing CSS property exists, this snippet in the template does nothing, so I removed it. --logixoul 12:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and Netoholic blew us both away -_- --logixoul 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wiktionary-equivalent of this? It would be nice to give the struggling wiktionaries some attention as well.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. There already is one: Template:Wiktionarylang (also see Category:Interwiki link templates).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this template be used at English language#External Links. I think that such a self-reference is necessary to comply with the spirit of Wikipedia: Avoid self-references. The template would need to be included as {{interwiki|code=w}} (because en: doesn't link to the main page for some reason).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added , the free encyclopedia to the template text so people know what Wikipedia actually is. I don't think the edit is too controversial but please discuss here if you disagree.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please sync with the InterWiki/sandbox to align this template with the usual style for these boxes (that is, use {{sister}}). TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been done by Shirik. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello experts, could anyone please check why this template is not working in the Pontic Greek article? Thanks a lot! --Kazu89 ^ノート 08:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich made some changes[1] to change this template from using PAGENAME to using the language code to determine the name of the language. Fram has reverted, so discussion is needed. Some examples of pages which use parameter 1 are Ligurian (Romance language), Brunei, Bavaria, Basic English, Iceland, Guam and Lesotho. An example of using PAGENAME resulting in inconsistency is Afrikaans which says "Afrikaans edition of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" instead of "Afrikaans language edition of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", Esperanto, and Ido, Latin, Sanskrit, Category:Choctaw. Maybe some of these shouldn't have ' language' as it is superfluous given the context. The same can be said for Arabic language, which makes just as much sense as "Arabic edition of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (i.e. not "Arabic language edition.."). More examples can be found by looking for transclusions at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:InterWiki from pages which dont end in ' language'. IMO using the language code is better as the template is also used on many pages which are not about the language, such as List of islands of Brazil. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, we can use PAGENAME if the langcode isnt recognised, and automatically flag the langcode as unrecognised. See Template_talk:ISO_639_name#Duplicate_of_Template:Language. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough's change (which I reverted as an undiscussed change to a fully protected template, and which broke the template link on some 40-odd pages) doesn't add "language" anywhere apparently. It's consistent, I don't know whether it is better. I.e. on List of islands of Brazil, it would change it to Portuguese edition instead of Portuguese language edition. It also requires the creation of non-existent ISO 639 codes like Template:ISO 639 name simple, which is not really very professional. I see no real advantage in this change. Fram (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not require the addition of "non-existent ISO 639 codes". The template would still accept a parameter that would override (like it already does) for cases where we have a wiki project that doesnt have an ISO code. And we would still use PAGENAME if there is no better option. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of that "simple" template by Rich Farmbrough and subsequent discussion gave me the impression that it was required though. I suppose you mean that still using Pagename is the solution you suggest, not the one Rich Farmbrough implemented and I reverted? Since in his version, all mention of Pagename had disappeared. Fram (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting improving the template to use the 'code' parameter to determine the language name. This is what Rich did and you reverted. I still think that approach is the right direction, so now we discuss. I personally dont mind that we have Template:ISO 639 name simple and other templates for languages without a ISO 639 value provided the template pages explain that they are not official values (it is an unfortunately useful hack), but recognising that some may find that hack unacceptable, I've suggested we use PAGENAME and an override as fallbacks so that we dont need to create pages for unofficial langcodes. A blended solution which is backwards compatible, will result in simpler invocation in most cases, and (I think) no more complicated invocations than the current template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified this template so that it now uses the {{#language}} and {{#property}} magic words.

• The former means that we no longer get ugly outputs when {{{1}}} isn't specified: For instance, previously the pages Pitkern language and Norfuk dialect referred to the "Pitkern language edition" and the "Norfuk dialect edition" of Wikipedia. A), generally we refer to language editions as simply "the such-and-such edition", and b) in that particular case, and others like it, {{PAGENAME}} gives you the wrong answer, since the two languages share a wiki. Now, on either page, you see the more accurate "Norfuk / Pitkern edition". (If other editors do feel that it should say "Norfuk / Pitkern language edition", they can feel free to change it; like I said, I think that sounds kinda weird.) Oh, also, if for some reason {{#language}} doesn't work, the template will use the old {{PAGENAME}} fallback (to which I've also added {{Title without disambig}} as a bonus).
• The latter means that if no {{{code}}} is specified, the template will check to see if Wikidata has any value listed under its "Wikimedia language code" property. It won't effect the behavior whatsoever for uses of the template where {{{code}}} is specified.

Anyways, I see this all as fairly noncontroversial, but folks can feel free to WP:BRD, of course. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a link to English WP at Barbados or the Falkland Islands. What possible function would it serve? Likewise links from biographies or lists of islands, though I did leave on at the List of Nepali actresses just because so many of them were red links. We should have this, where? language articles, articles about those other 'pedias, lists of country-related links and outlines of countries, maybe? Or is even that too much? — kwami (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]