Talk:Interwiki map

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Interwiki map Archives (current)→
The associated page is used by the MediaWiki software to add and remove interwiki link prefixes (such as [[w:blah]] to "blah" on Wikipedia). Any Meta-Wiki administrator can edit the interwiki map. It is synced to the Wikimedia cluster every few weeks. Please post comments to the appropriate section (Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Requests for updates, Troubleshooting, or Other discussions); read the boxes at the top of each for an explanation. Completed requests are moved to the archives.

Proposed additions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg The Interwiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis and free content.

This section is for proposing a new interwiki link prefix. Interwiki prefixes should be reserved for websites that would be useful on a significant number of pages ({{LinkSummary}} can help). Websites useful only to a few pages should be linked to with the usual external link syntax. Please don't propose additions of sites with too few pages or that contain copyright infringing content, such as YouTube. As a guide, sites considered for inclusion should probably

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
  4. be a wiki
  5. have reasonable amounts of content
  6. not contain malware

Add new entries at the bottom of the section. When requesting a new prefix, please explain why it would be useful keeping the above in mind. Admins, please allow consensus to form (or at least no objections to be raised over a period of a few days) before adding new entries, as once added they are hard to remove from the many copies around the world.

Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page in the removals section and will be decided on by a Meta admin.


The following discussion is closed: Not done

link: http://www$$2 prefix:atwiki: or @wiki:
  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top40wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):Not really
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:list of pages:google ssearch with site: command give a huge amount of result.
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add this if nobody objects within a few days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this needs wider review. @This, that and the other: please check these? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
An interwiki prefix isn't going to work for this site, because the domains are of the form, where X is some number (e.g. I tried in the hope it would redirect to the correct subdomain, but as you can see, it doesn't work. People will have to continue to use URLs for this site. This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about a script that would redirect $1:$2 to http://www$$2? It it worth the effort? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Not worth it, I'd say. Their wikis are of widely varying usefulness and activity levels. Some of them may be useful, but if making it an interwiki means allowing them bypass mechanisms like captcha and abuse filters, I don't think it is a good idea. Besides that, regarding malware, just half a year ago, Atwiki's user credential databases were reportedly entirely leaked and its thousands of wikis were exposed to risks of being hijacked by malware/virus distributors. [1][2] whym (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Not done per objections raised by the users. — M 11:25, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

MBA Library[edit]

link:$1 prefix:mba:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top20wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):In site's about page, it said content can be reused under GNU GFDL license, but at the bottom of every page of the site, it have the copyright icon and said all right reserved
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:339 thousand articles contributed by 121 thousand users
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify the purpose of the site please. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a kind of business/tech wiki encyclopedia. I agree with C933103 that it certainly has a lot of content, but I can't help but wonder if this site's mission overlaps too much with Wikipedia's. I don't know why WMF wikis would be needing to link to this site, and indeed, only 3 articles on each of enwiki and zhwiki link to this site. This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a encyclopedia for economic/management aspect with the objective of creating/sharing knowledge of in this aspect. (does mission overlap prevent mediawiki creating interwiki link to the site?)(it had been discussed sometime ago to use some of its content onto chinese wikipedia but as far as i know it is not done because of its unclear copyright notice)C933103 (talk)(currently 14 different articles had been linked) 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


link prefix:orain

It's a wiki-farm, though it is not linked much( w:Special:LinkSearch/* ) I think it might be useful having the interwiki map, since it is growing. --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see why, it doesn't seem like it so far contains any content of interest. --MF-W 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at requirements:
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects No (and this one is very important)
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects Yes (won't be spammed)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) Yes (CC BY-SA 3.0 by default [3])
  4. be a wiki Yes obviously
  5. have reasonable amounts of content No (AFAICS)
  6. not contain malware Yes obviously
PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't say anything for 1 really but in regards to 5, since it is a wiki farm - the wikis in it count as content points. One to see is this wiki. A few others exist but probably not contributing anything to Wikimedia per se John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, that wiki seems to just be a MediaWiki fork of, which already has an interwiki prefix (tvtropes:). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering this. I would appreciate it if This, that and the other would comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that Wikia is in the interwiki map, while ShoutWiki is not, for whatever reason. From a content perspective, Orain presently seems closer to ShoutWiki than Wikia. I personally would be in favour of adding both ShoutWiki and Orain simply for completeness' sake, but that's just a personal thing and not necessarily supported by strong, accepted reasons.
On the technical side, interwiki links to individual Orain wikis appear impossible with their current setup. They need a central redirector like Wikia, or at least to put all their wikis on their interwiki map. This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ICANN Wiki[edit]

link:$1 prefix:icannwiki:

ICANNWiki, the independent collaborative resource for the ICANN community.

  • There is Top Level Domain explosion. WikiPedia do not allow creating pages for every top level domain.
  • This wiki contains very detailed information about all the generic top level domains.
  • Has many other topics related with the top level domains, such as DNSSEC.
  • Some of ICANNWiki sponsors are Google, VeriSign, ICANN, Donuts, Sedo, Dyn, DotAfrica, Radix.
Wikipedia has allowed pages about every top-level domain. There are hundreds of country-level domains, for instance. Not sure what "sponsors" have to do with anything, as we are not for sale? K7L (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
K7L, check out w:Template:Generic_top-level_domains, I have created some pages like etc, they have all been proposed for deletion or they were redirected. Plus, I have been blocked for a week for mass creating new pages (they claimed that for example .ninja is not popular thus cannot be created). Okay, if this is the case let's at least link them to ICANN Wiki. --Kirov Airship (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WMFLabs' Phabricator[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not needed now

link:$1 prefix:fabr

It seems some tools of WMFLabs will migrate into this, thus I wonder we can add an iwlink to it. Note: no "fab" because it's ISO 639-3 for Fa d'Ambu Language. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Labs subdomain was only a temporary location, and that the "real" Phabricator would be in PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And wouldn't we eventually want the prefix "phab" anyway? (Or we could even have "ph"; it's not an ISO prefix. But that's a discussion for later.) This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This test instance doesn't exist anymore, and the new test instance lives at (but imho it doesn't need any interwiki link).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As far as I know, phab: already works. Is this still required? Thanks (ping to Qgil-WMF, PiRSquared17, This, that and the other). Best regards. — M 11:06, 06 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. We have phab:, and as Quim said above, there is no need to link to the site. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Pefect, thanks.  Not done then. — M 11:13, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Added

MetaWikipedia should be kept for BC, but in core it's now MetaWikimedia. Its absence in the IWM causes confusion, see [4]. --Nemo 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is unambiguous and uncontroversial, so it can be added. Let's wait a few days to see if anyone objects, unless it's urgent. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikia still has this on their Interwiki map together with m: and MetaWikiMedia:. Their Interwiki map talk page is now frozen. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please add this. We've got ourselves (both here and in MediaWiki itself) into a bit of mess with these links to Meta, so for consistency I think we need to add metawikimedia: here. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done, see diff. Regards. — M 11:22, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


LocalWiki is a grassroots effort to collect, share and open the world’s local knowledge. We're 100% open source, open content, and are often referred to as a Wikipedia "sister project in spirit". Having an Interwiki link would help us give standard instructions to our editor community for how to, when appropriate, add links to Wikipedia. Additionally, it would help us avoid often automated flagging of our link additions under WP:LINKSTOAVOID ("open wikis"), something that's been confusing for LocalWiki editors who contribute to Wikipedia in the past.

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: Yes! There are currently a number of links to LocalWiki throughout Wikipedia, though some are using the older wikispot: Interwiki prefix. Links currently exist with wikispot:,, and the older domain, Note: was an old project of ours, and while it's still maintained (and hence retiring the wikispot: prefix would be premature), we've imported all locally-oriented data into the new LocalWiki project.
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: Yup! We have a fairly large editor community that regularly patrols all of our edits.
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Yup! All of LocalWiki is licensed under CC-BY, with map data being licensed ODbL for OpenStreetMap compatibility.
  4. be a wiki: Yup.
  5. have reasonable amounts of content: LocalWiki is probably one of the largest wikis, with over 80,000 pages (see
  6. not contain malware: No malware, and an active editor community to prevent malware and spam.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

FWIW I've added an "SVG wanted" tag to LocalWiki logo.png and stripped blank lines in your numbered list here (was 1. 1. 1. instead of 1. 2. 3.). –Be..anyone (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, c:File:LocalWiki_Logo.svg created by a commons contributor. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

hdl: –[edit]

Resolve resource access by w:en:Handle System (RFC 3650), as doi: prefix already does.

Since hdl is not a registered code by ISO 639 / SIL, no conflict with a future WMF language version is expected. See:

The hdl: access is available for many documents referenced on wikis already, and the DOI system is based upon it. Actually, DOI is a special case of hdl: and doi:10.1000/182 yields to the same as will do. However, DOI is only one authority 10 among many more, but with specific constraints. While DOI is well known, the other authorities are mentioned on papers, but often ignored by wiki authors yet. I do expect increasing amount of usage (currently 7,374 on enwiki, 863 on dewiki).

Greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for proposing that a prefix be disabled; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to explain why it should be disabled, particularly in view of the difficulty involved in correcting any use of the prefix (to generate a list of pages to fix: toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php). Completed requests are marked with {{done}} or {{not done}} and moved to the archives.

No longer working links (was "Ourpla")[edit]


No longer working TheDJ (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold: see below. Nemo 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty, Support Support deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This one's is not on the map? Thehelpfulone 13:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he meant AbbeNormal [5]? --Nemo 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have a personal blog on the map? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


No longer available TheDJ (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(Note, checked up to freefeel wiki) TheDJ (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

All these should be first delinked (transformed in external links) on all wikis and only then removed, to avoid loss of information, with the possible exception of spam sites. Thanks for your report, Nemo 17:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a list of links for each of the wikis above at tools:~nemobis/tmp/iwm/, please check it to confirm requests. --Nemo 21:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Lovely work Nemo. I concur with your approach and actions. I would also like to see some ability for your toy tool to be more widely available, even if it just did a count or had a count done a regular basis, and there was a means to request a full report in a timely fashion. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty, Support Support deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
My skill with SQL queries is so close to zero that I asked Liangent to produce the script I used. It's linked from the top of the section, so any Toolserver user can run it and of course I can add or update lists immediately when requested on my talk. So far they don't seem to have been used. --Nemo 06:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh well, it was worth the try. :-) Maybe we can put a request at Tech to MZM — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
An API query was mentioned on voy:project:Travellers' Pub but it seems to check only one wiki at a time. A toolserver SQL string is of no use to anyone other than an actual toolserver user (which seems to be just a limited few around here). Certainly the global list of wikitravel: spam is invaluable and something wikivoyageurs will want to know if all those links need to be updated, but it would seem we need the same info for every prefix deletion request here if the sole criterion for deletion is to be use or lack of use on individual wikis. K7L (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The list has already been provided above, but 1) no it's not the sole criterion but surely a requirement; 2) it's not for w:WP:BEANS so if people start pseudo-vandalising wikis I won't produce such lists any longer; 3) wikivoyagers have surely better things to do than removing links to their own wiki (see #Requests for updates). --Nemo 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's "not the sole criterion but surely a requirement" for any removal request, that's going to affect every request... not just links to one particular wiki (which I won't discuss right now as it's currently in TfD on en: and Pages à Supprimer on fr:). There needs to be some sort of web interface to this toolserver script so anyone can run this query for any prefix before opening a discussion here - much like any WP:AFC n00b simply clicks on "webreflinks" or "citation bot" from an en.wp template to watch those tools do some useful task. K7L (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken URLs[edit]

Some were moved to #guildwarswiki and updated. I made lists of usages for the prefixes above available at tools:~nemobis/tmp/iwm/, in case someone wants to help me check them. --Nemo 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If I understand the format of your files correctly, none of the ones I have looked at are in use at all (except for a few on testwiki). Surely you could just sort each file and compare them automatically, to see which ones have any usages? This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I could, but I'm not good at that sort of things and instead I propose that someone improves the script. :) For now I paste here the lines count; in theory all the unused ones should have as many lines as the wikis are, but numbers don't match that well so there may be some mistake.
      733 allwiki
      732 AllWiki
      732 BibleWiki
      732 CorpKnowPedia
      732 DejaNews
      732 FinalEmpire
      732 GotAMac
      732 GreatLakesWiki
      732 JamesHoward
      732 JiniWiki
      732 KerimWiki
      732 Kpopwiki
      732 LugKR
      732 OpenFacts
      732 OSI reference model
      732 PerlNet
      732 SMikipedia
      732 SVGWiki
      732 Swingwiki
      732 Tavi
      732 TESOLTaiwan
      732 TibiaWiki
      732 Turismo
      732 Vinismo
      732 Webisodes
      732 Wikinvest
      732 Wikipaltz
      732 Wikischool
      732 WikiWeet
      734 world66
--Nemo 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's because some of your files haven't been updated since Sept last year, and many new wikis have been opened since then! Can I suggest you re-generate all the older files? (ps. "echei" seems to have one meaningful link here on meta.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nah, they only needed some cleanup but I was too lazy to do it properly. Now it should be correct. So they're all unused? I'm not sure I'm doing the queries correctly, mind you. --Nemo 09:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: wikinvest:concept/U.S._Economic_Cycles - this is a wiki (albeit one filled with ads and comments). See the "edit" link? See also wikinvest:special/Version. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Nemo bis, PiRSquared17: The following from this list are now unused, except for trivial usages (i.e. testwiki:Interwiki-table, es:Ayuda:Cómo se edita una página and similar places): allwiki, corpknowpedia, dejanews, finalempire, gotamac, jiniwiki, kerimwiki, lugkr, perlnet, svgwiki, tesoltaiwan, webisodes. Some have only one non-trivial use: wikipaltz is used on n:Talk:Hundreds_of_SUNY_New_Paltz_students_demonstrate,_storm_administration_building only. Among the others, wikinvest in particular is still heavily used. If you want the full data, I will happily provide it, or you can generate it yourself (see User:This, that and the other/interwiki). This, that and the other (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nemo bis, This, that and the other, Billinghurst, Thehelpfulone, TheDJ:: any updates on this one or its sections? — M 11:47, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the interwiki links I listed in my comment of 27 December 2013. Although the data returned by the interwiki table and PiRSquared's wmflabs tool is incomplete (it lacks interwiki links that were added to pages that haven't been touched [edited or null edited] within the last ~6 years IIRC), I think it is quite safe to remove those prefixes from the map. I will look again at the others tomorrow. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dead is dead, and I would prefer that they are red links, rather than blue links, as that is more likely to promote action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing to close this discussion and remove all the indicated urls from the interwiki. Need to step through an RFC to deal with this more efficiently, that it takes a year to delete dead urls is ridiculous.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Support both: closure and rfc. -- M\A 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really sure what an RFC here is supposed to achieve. It's a fairly specific niche issue we're talking about here. Only a small number of people are evidently interested in the topic of interwiki linking. I think a standard discussion on this page should be enough to decide how to improve the process. This, that and the other (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: MetaWikiSearch IW created, MetaWiki now redirecting to this site

Hi. Everytime I want to use the Meta-Wiki interwiki, I always have the reflex to use [[:MetaWiki:]], but this links to and I think this is wrong. If we want to keep linking on, we should create interwiki [[:MetaWikiSearch:]] and not monopolize "MetaWiki" in other way than Meta-Wiki. Thank you. Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --MF-W 00:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I have also had the same confusion so agree with this. --Glaisher [talk] 07:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What, metawiki: doesn't go to this project? Support Support redirecting the prefix to this project. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
How many uses are there on WMF projects? What about on other projects using this interwiki map (hard to measure)? I recommend we change any remaining usages to a new version before changing this, so we don't end up with weird broken links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: I've figured out how to find usages of interwiki prefixes using Wikimedia Labs; see User:This, that and the other/interwiki. (Nemo, you might be particularly interested in this.) Data for this "metawiki" prefix is at User:This, that and the other/metawiki. All the usages seem erroneous or trivial. It is worth noting that namespaces do not appear relevant to the site, so links to metawiki:User:xyz would never have worked as intended.
As for other projects using this interwiki map, I think it is unlikely that any would exist, due to the difficulty of adapting our dumpInterwiki/rebuildInterwiki scripts to external installations. Even if others are using our data, the metawiki: interwiki prefix is installed by default with MediaWiki (pointing to, so people should still have it anyway.
Personally I think this Metawiki Search site is so badly out of date that it should just be removed from the map. Many of the wikis indexed by Metawiki Search are stale or no longer accessible. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with TTO - Metawiki Search is an artifact of the early wiki network. Sunir's never going to update it - even MeatballWiki has been fishbowled now. Sad times, but we have to move on. — Scott talk 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott, Nemo bis: I agree that this is reasonable to remove, as it has no real usage, except for people who meant to use "m:" or "meta:" (or archaic "metawikipedia:"). (When I made my previous comment here, I had no statistics on usage.) Any objections? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No :) This, that and the other (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done [6] — M 11:34, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: still in use at wikitech, to be reviewed when that use ceases  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The "rt" interwiki prefix was added in this edit following this talk page post (can't really call it a discussion...). RT is private and the cited use-case is wikitech:httpsless domains, which pretty clearly doesn't use this interwiki map. There's also now confusion that "RT" is a namespace alias for the local "Research talk" namespace. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "RT" used for? Searching for "RT" on Meta doesn't bring up anything that explains what it is, it's not in the glossary, and I can't find anything else of interest. The BestPractical site describes its product as the "leading enterprise-grade open source issue tracking system", but don't we already have bug tracking systems? There are a few uses, but I don't know which of these links are correct. I'd guess the ones that aren't numbers aren't really links to "RT", but I'm not sure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: It's an internal, password-protected issue tracker used by the Wikimedia operations team for confidential stuff. Yes, anything that is not a number is not a correct use of this interwiki. The three uses on mediawikiwiki lead me to think this should stay, but it's definitely borderline. This, that and the other (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
See also the RT page on Wikitech. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: RT will soon be closed down as part of the migration to Phabricator, so this is an opportune time to kill off this interwiki link. I removed the 5 valid uses of this link from and Meta, so it is safe to remove this from the map now. This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • {{ok}} [7] — M 11:38, 06 December 2014 (UTC)Reverted, see below
  • The reasons provided here to justify this link breaking are really unconvincing. I'm very sad that the interwiki map gets more and more unreliable. --Nemo 12:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm willing to revert the removal if you think it's worth keeping it Nemo. But the site is going down so I don't see how it can be useful. Open to be convinced otherwise. Regards. — M 12:12, 06 December 2014 (UTC) (readded — M 12:27, 06 December 2014 (UTC))
    The migration timeline expects, that this site goes down on 2014-12-15. Private sites with a login have no business on an Interwiki map intended for all wikis (not limited to Wikimedia or Mediawiki). –Be..anyone (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    What is being broken here? There are no links on WMF wikis anymore (other than wikitech, which uses its own interwiki map). Bugzilla had its own RT linking regex, so there ought not to have been any links of the form [[rt:1234]] there; and that's moot anyway, now that the migration to Phabricator as occurred. I normally agree with you, Nemo, but just am not sure what you're referring to here. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: does wikitech use its own Interwiki map? I thought that they became the same when there was some standardisation earlier this year. (Comment is separate to any opinion about the request)  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you're right, Billinghurst. It seems that wikitech does now use the same interwiki map as all other WMF wikis. This means that RT will need to remain on this interwiki map for the time being, and perhaps forever (at least as long as wikitech is still with us).
    As for why PiRSquared's tool doesn't cover labswiki (as wikitech is internally known), I don't know the answer to that. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the link must remain, right? I propose to close this request as not done for now, until the site goes down for everyone when the interwiki link won't be required anymore. -- M\A 09:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[edit]

I can't really imagine this website being useful enough to be listed as an interwiki link. It's basically a wiki devoted to a bunch of clubs in London. There are hundreds of local wikis on the internet, most of which cover a lot more (get it? "cover a lot more"? LOL). Anyway, this seems like someone's pet addition rather than a legitimately useful interwiki link. @Nemo: Do you want to see if it's actually in use anywhere? Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there's about 10 real uses (mostly on Should be easy to migrate. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Kaldari, PiRSquared17: Any updates? Can we remove it? — M 11:41, 06 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy to migrate to external links if you want. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Just a personal blog. Looks like another pet addition that isn't legitimately useful as an interwiki link. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See #Ourpla above ... PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari: Some of us have much longer memories than you and don't feel the need to pass judgement on a site's "legitimacy". For what it's worth, I just came here to suggest removing John's wiki from the map. It's an artifact from the origin of the interwiki system, when we were a small family of sites belonging to individual people. Those days are long gone. — Scott talk 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: I just said it wasn't legitimately useful as an interwiki link (which seems fairly accurate). Please excuse me if I caused any offense. Kaldari (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Offline Flyerwiki has been offline for 18 months. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [8] - Sorry that it took so long Justin. Regards. — M 12:05, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Not functional SMikipedia is online but no longer has content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [9] — M 12:07, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Not functional BibleWiki is online but no longer has content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [10] — M 12:09, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

Enciclopedia Libre[edit]

Remove Site has been down several times that I have checked for the past three months (and it's never been up). The University of Seville's site is up and I can't find an alternate URI. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comment that would be ELibre$1  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: is your tool down? I went to check the i/w status and got no tool response. Plus we so need to template that tool for easier checking here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, This, that and the other: PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If this were to be removed, it would need a couple of non-trivial uses replaced with external links, at least. One in particular is a sourcing link at Commons (File:Gran speo.jpg), which we would not want to break. There could possibly be others that predate the introduction of the interwiki table. I would be very hesitant to remove this simply because of its long history and the potential for breaking links. This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: I don't see the problem: couldn't these instances of Elibre: be replaced pretty easily with some boilerplate text that reads "formerly hosted at"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course, and I would even recommend to do that (or replace them with a link to the Wayback Machine/Web Archive if the content is available there). But "there could possibly be others [other interwiki links] that predate the introduction of the interwiki table", meaning we have no way of knowing where they are. Interwiki links on pages that were last touched (edited, null-edited, etc) before 2010 do not show up in the interwiki table or PiRSquared's tool. This means we have to be careful when removing old sites from this interwiki map. Random crufty sites can usually go without too much concern, but this site is quite important and may well have a lot of old links from places like eswiki (in talk archives and the like) that we don't know about. This, that and the other (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: Oh this is fascinating. I didn't realize that there was no particular way to have a robot scour the WMF sites for all instances of [[elibre:foo]] and replace it with some template or boilerplate text. Yikes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be possible using the insource: feature of the new CirrusSearch engine, but would be very slow, and I doubt anyone is willing to invest the time to make a script that would do this across all wikis.:
There is also the mwgrep tool This only searches the MediaWiki: namespace, so not useful for us. This, that and the other (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC), 10:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: Couldn't someone just do this with an online database dump? I can't imagine anyone has added many [[elibre:]] links since the last dump. We could probably call that 99% correct and not worry about diminishing returns, right? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Could work. I've never interacted with database dumps, though, so wouldn't like to try it myself. This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


No content I don't even know what this was but there's nothing there now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See the Web Archive: I don't know why this was ever here. It's a documentation wiki for some Open Source software project. It has no non-trivial recorded uses on any WMF wiki. I support the removal. This, that and the other (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Spam Redirects to another domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This is another ancient one which I removed from the default MW interwiki map some time ago. I think it can go from here as well. No recorded non-trivial uses on WMF sites. This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


No contentJustin (koavf)TCM 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in use at en:User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 3 and en:MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive 16, but as best as I can tell, that was simply to demonstrate interwiki linking. All the same, I'm a little hesitant to remove this, as the content is all available in the Wayback Machine, and the Crazy Hacks wiki was mainly active before 2006, when the interwiki table wasn't populated. This, that and the other (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Perpetually loads I never get any content or an error message. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. This must be from the days when we had lots of personal wikis on here. This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Perpetually loads I never get any content or an error message. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Requests for updates[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for requesting update for an existing interwiki. This could be needed if your site's URL has changed. Please add new entries at the bottom of the section.


The Creatures Wiki has separated from Wikia and is now hosted at //$1 - please update the CreaturesWiki: interwiki. GreenReaper (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The old URL (wikia:creatures) still seems to work and has lots of pages, although wikia:creatures:Special:Recentchanges has a lot fewer entries than the other one. What is usually done with interwiki prefixes in cases like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, has the support of the community, including both of its founders and all its administrators, and all existing links should work at the new URL. has ads, no editors, is stuck on http: and an old version of MediaWiki, and is now called the Creatures Wikia. As you say, wikia:creatures remains available as a link if people want to link to it. GreenReaper (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comment Is CreaturesWiki a direct replica linkwise? (well at least at the time of separation). What is the existing state of the wikia version, and its future?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The XML import from August 15 contains a complete edit history. Current versions of images were uploaded. The recent changes for and speak to the relative editor population. Wikia has control over the wikis it runs and tends to keep them up regardless for the sake of traffic, but the Creatures community is relatively small and close-knit - I don't see many people editing there with the main sites announcing the move and changing their links. (The domain was created in advance after a prior dispute, and now redirects to GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I am okay with making the change, though will leave it for another day or so for other comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I hate to flip-flop, but in the last 24 hours I've found that the new host has a personal animosity against me, and is using their status to refuse to restore my sysop/bureaucrat rights, without community support. They also kicked me off a chat service used for related discussions (which is moving as a result). They own the domain, and this makes me hesitant to continue to support the change I proposed. Moving away from Wikia is beneficial, but if the new system administrator is willing to abuse their power, we may have to move again very soon. I still hope this issue can be resolved amicably, and if so I will report back here. GreenReaper (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We don’t expect to move again. While GreenReaper may be understandably disappointed with the actions he described, there has been appropriate community consensus for all described actions taken by the host. We still endorse the original request (//$1). Sgeo (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? Hi. Is this still required? Best regards. -- M\A 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Not done.

If nobody raises objections I plan to change the bugzilla interwiki link to point to; as currently bugzilla: links redirects to Phabricator, whose ticket numbers do not match. Changing the link of the IW bugzilla: to point to the archived site will fix this. -- M\A 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Note that bugzilla:12345 goes to Phabricator task T14345, which is the same bug (see It is better to have the interwiki link making use of the automatic redirection to Phabricator, as that is where all new action on the bugs/tasks will occur. Old-bugzilla is an archive, and obviously does not keep up with new developments on the bug reports.. This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I thought that bugzilla won't redirect us to the correct bug numbers now in Phabricator. I've checked some bugs and they all redirect me to the current Phabricator bugs. Autoclosed as  Not done. Sorry for my ignorance. -- M\A 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for comments related to problems or corrections with the interwiki map (such as incorrect syntax or entries not functioning). This is not the section to request that a prefix be disabled (see Proposed removals above).

Other discussions[edit]

Can the iwlinks database table be trusted?[edit]

PiRSquared17 and possibly others have begun relying on data from the iwlinks table, but are we sure the data in this table can be trusted? Has anyone done any research into whether it properly tracks interwiki links? For some reason I have strange thoughts that this table was previously unused and/or unreliable, but I may simply be mistaken. Hard data on its accuracy/trustworthiness would be good to have before we rely on it in making decisions about which interwiki links to keep or remove. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo bis, This, that and the other: have also been using it. toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php seems to work. Note that it is currently slow, but I will try to fix it soon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You can usually do some sampling to figure out if it's accurate. Is the table lazy-loaded? I think that's the key question. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The interwiki search tool definitely presents current information, well it links disappear with removals, and not one link was incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. The issue isn't false positives, but false negatives. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have evidence that iwlinks is giving wrong information, then Bugzilla is the place. Otherwise, there's really no point worrying about a hypothetical. If iwlinks is lazy-loaded then we might be missing some very recently added interwiki links, but for long-broken interwiki prefixes such as the ones being discussed for removal above, I don't think this is a concern. This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: If the table is lazy-loaded, aren't you going to overlook links on any page that hasn't been null-edited since the change was implemented? This would naturally mean that older, less viewed and edited pages, which are most likely to use older entries on the interwiki map, would be ignored in any usage checks. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride: Which change are you referring to? This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: The introduction of the iwlinks table. I'm trying to figure out whether the iwlinks table is trustworthy. Has anyone randomly sampled the data to ensure that it's accurate? If the table was introduced in 2010 and millions of pages haven't been touched since 2010, their links won't be tracked in the iwlinks table, right? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
How many pages are there that have not been touched since 2010? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As an example, n:Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building was last edited in March 2009, and I would find it hard to believe that anyone would have made a null edit to the page since then. Yet its interwikis to "wikipaltz" are in the iwlinks table for enwikinews.

And to answer your question, PiR, see Special:AncientPages on any wiki. This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was touched in 2012:
<page pageid="24510" ns="1" title="Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building" contentmodel="wikitext" pagelanguage="en" touched="2012-10-11T15:19:20Z" lastrevid="784213" counter="" length="41275" />
Does AncientPages go by last edit or date touched? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It goes by last edit. I see what you mean by "touched" now: I was assuming it just meant "last edit", but there is more to it than that.
This API query is interesting, if run repeatedly and when run on various different wikis (Spanish Wikibooks was just a random choice). You can see when pages were last touched and whether they have entries in the iwlinks table. So far I haven't found any anomalies (pages with pre-2011 touched dates that have interwiki links on the page but no iwlinks entries). This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your question about pages that were touched long ago, you could run an SQL query on labs.
MariaDB [eswikibooks_p]> select page_namespace, page_title, page_touched from p
age where( page_namespace = 0 or page_namespace = 4) and page_is_redirect = 0 o
rder by page_touched asc limit 10 \G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
page_namespace: 0
    page_title: Odontotutor/3334remanentesreformtallar
  page_touched: 20061121160001
This, that and the other (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: Thank you for the reply! That does seem to answer the question. Can you please verify that the following queries are correct?
MariaDB [metawiki_p]> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM iwlinks JOIN page ON page.page_id=iwlinks.iwl_from WHERE page.page_touched < 20100000000000 AND iwlinks.iwl_title IS NOT NULL \g
| COUNT(*) |
|       33 |
1 row in set (6.28 sec)
MariaDB [metawiki_p]> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM iwlinks JOIN page ON page.page_id=iwlinks.iwl_from WHERE page.page_touched > 20100000000000 AND iwlinks.iwl_title IS NOT NULL \g
| COUNT(*) |
| 22686477 |
1 row in set (30.96 sec)
Seems strange to me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The queries look right. You're right that it is strange. It would be great if we could get someone to effectively run lines 191-193 of includes/deferred/LinksUpdate.php on all pages across the WMF cluster (or at least all those created before 2011). Trouble is, that could take a long time, since it requires a full parse of each page in order to extract interwiki links. This, that and the other (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride, what do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
We should null edit every page. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
So there's no maintenance script for this? I'm not sure this is a good idea. Has it been done before? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing broken links[edit]

Can't we have someone design some sort of global bot to run along and change any of the 'interwiki prefixes' from [[prefix:foo]] to [http://whatever+foo foo] (or [https://whatever+foo baz] if [[prefix:foo|baz]]), then afterwards notify the larger communities like enwiki that the links will be deprecated? This bot will obviously ignore more complex coding like the iwlink being nested in a template, which would require a human check. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]