Template talk:Interlanguage link

Template:Interlanguage link is permanently protected from editing as 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.

Languages

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage

Translation studies

This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Discussion of at WP:VPR

There is currently a discussion at WP:VPR titled Propose to deprecate direct linking to non-English Wikipedia in articles. The discussion includes suggested improvements to this template. Wracking ^talk! 03:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note d"? - No, it's a link to Wikidata!

For the benefit of unsophisticated users, could something be done to prevent the -qid -short -superscript version of this link from looking like an ordinary "Note d"?

My suggestion is simply to make it read "wd" instead of "d". (I am using the Wikipedia app on a tablet and there are no pop-ups or mouse-overs.) 180.150.38.244 (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a far better solution would be for |short=/|s= to display.... the value of the parameter! You could still have |s=1, |s=yes and similar display ^[d] not to break compatibility with the current instructions, but this way, an editor wanting ^[wd] could simply enter |s=wd 👍 That way we avoid a back and forth where the parameter is hardcoded to some single value different people can't agree on. CapnZapp (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp But it's the poor unsophisticated *readers* (me) I'm worried about. Can't the Wikipedia community settle on something (please, only *one* thing) that is short and suggests "this will take you to somewhere else" and doesn't look like a note at the bottom of the page. 180.150.38.244 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be the only one who got/will get fooled. 180.150.38.244 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the "d" be replaced with some extended character that looks like the "little box that represents an URL"? 180.150.38.244 (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or we get rid of the superscript, which is 99.99% used as footnotes/explanatory notes, and is thus confusing regardless of whether it's ^[d] or ^[fr]. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The vertical alignment option was a bit controversial when it was discussed in May 2015. I would support removing it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, |v=sup makes it look just like a footnote, which is a terrible idea. We should get rid of |v=. [Note: it is apparently used 16,128 times, out of about 640,000 transclusions, so we might want to examine its usage a bit before summarily removing it.] Also, I think it would not be difficult to change "[d]" to "[wd]". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see usage patterns. I am fine with prohibiting/limiting use of interwiki superscripts in running text in mainspace, but can imagine specialised applications exist. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the usage of |v= from the Wikidata example of the documentation. Not primarily because of this discussion, but because it's not pedagogical to mix parameters in documentation. Still, I agree any short form for [Wikidata] needs its own visual identity. CapnZapp (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent use of parameters values

Why does |display= require specific values to convey "enabled" (i.e. 1, y, yes or force) while for |nobold= you can use any value?

For italics and quotation marks, the documentation is vague. For example, it says: "... use |italic=y (or |italic=yes, etc.)" Does this mean "etc" stands for only 1 and force in addition to y and yes (as for |display=) or does "etc" mean you can use anything (as for |nobold=)?

CapnZapp (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp It's just a documentation artifact. All of those parameters are enabled by using any value, and disabled by leaving them blank or omitting them. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've updated the doc page. CapnZapp (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-expand include size

@Jonesey95: When you updated this template to add unknown parameter tracking, you increased the post-expand include size of the template enough that it broke List of German films of the 2000s, List of German films of the 2010s, and 2021 Hiroshima gubernatorial election. I was able to reduce the impact a bit by invoking Module:Separated entries directly, but that only fixed the Hiroshima page, not the other two. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German films of the 2000s article is transcluding {{ill}} 2,720 times. The one for the 2010s contains 2,919 transclusions of {{ill}}. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's too many. Nevertheless, I have removed the {{main other}} check from this template to see if it makes a difference, and the 2000s article is now at 1548379/2097152. The 2010s article is at 1675669/2097152. If our IP editor continues to expand these articles, they will eventually creep back up to PEIS-land and will need to become less template-intensive or be split.

Removing main other from the parameter check will cause more pages to join Category:Pages using interlanguage link with unknown parameters, which may be undesirable. The current population is 444 pages from article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 I added links to the category description to namespace-specific searches. Looks like 408 from the article namespace, 5 from User, 5 from Wikipedia, 2 from Template, 4 from Template Talk, and 1 from Draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I was expecting more junk from User sandboxes and Draft pages. It looks like someone is working on cleaning up the invalid parameters as well, because there are only 119 pages in the category at this writing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

@User:CapnZapp improved on an addition of mine. Redirects at present are discussed in the Link to multiple languages section. This is quite inappropriate (I had added it to the Usage section, also possibly inappropriate); the discussion applies to single-language redirects, and might be missed by a reader seeking this sort of information. I'd suggest a new section for redirects. I don't think I'm the best candidate to implement this (I missed the fictitious redlink solution that has now been added), but would strongly suggest that a new section should be created and relevant content moved there. While this could be called "advanced", it's a problem that does arise with no obvious solution (I had 2 such cases in one article), not just a clever tweak to improve basic functionality. I also think it's worth a mention in the introduction. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - the "fictitious redlink solution" isn't some official standard or policy so there was nothing for you to miss. It's what I came up with for the circular redirect dilemma. Since that suggestion has remained undisputed for roughly six months I used it again here. If anyone got a better idea, by all means. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]