Talk:Interwiki map: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(nah, nevermind)
Line 221: Line 221:
* Statistics: []
* Statistics: []
* Reason: Semi-official successor to ThePPN ( for Asian pop music. [] Also see below for proposed removal of ThePPN.
* Reason: Semi-official successor to ThePPN ( for Asian pop music. [] Also see below for proposed removal of ThePPN.
* Wiki format: <nowiki>[[lm:]]</nowiki>
* Interwiki link:$1
* Statistics: ([ version translated by Google])
* Cross-wiki Link search: []
* Reason: is a unique encyclopedia of the Internet subculture in Russian. It can be used in the Russian Wikipedia as a source of additional information about Internet memes. Moreover, it's a place where could be transfered articles about Internet memes that are considered not important enough for Wikipedia.

== Proposed removals ==
== Proposed removals ==

Revision as of 05:31, 13 November 2009

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 administrator can edit the interwiki map. 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

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. 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 contains 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. does 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.

I have already added it to the Interwiki map and if any admin disagrees, they can kindly remove it, I have already asked the creator, and he is happy about its inclusion :) ..--Cometstyles 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't work. There's an internal link: [[SUL:Baxxter]] = SUL:Baxxter -- 15:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes I know, sadly the interwiki database hasn't been updated for nearly 4 months :( ...--Cometstyles 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't just unilaterally add things, no matter how convinced you are that they are useful. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a three letter code is the best choice, since that is what is used for new languages of Wikimedia projects. If a interwiki prefix is needed, I think "sulutil:" is better. /Ö 12:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
probably, but thats what it is commonly known as so easier to apply in and wmf: and sil: are other 3 letter words commonly used as well..but like Luxo's tool, its easier to remember and use though [[Global:Name]] could also be used ..--Cometstyles 12:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think SUL: is probably the best format (and SUL:Giggy works fine; not sure what the problem is with Baxxter). giggy (:O) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It didn't work then, the interwiki database wasn't updated so that link was red, and there is no way of knowing when the interwiki database gets updated, but looking at my last edit above, I believe it was over 12 hours ago...--Cometstyles 23:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See below: #sil & sul. Hillgentleman 04:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Already exists sulutil:. —Dferg (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already exists sulutil: --Dferg 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

support see not reason why not. --Walter 20:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wiki format: [[typophile:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: 1676 entries (from
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [3]
  • Reasons: is community regularly visited by typography experts, which post under their real names. The wiki feature is a newer addition. It allows users to link in their posts to wiki pages describing typography terms and technologies. There about 50 Wikipedia pages already linking to
support looks great --Walter 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wiki format: [[armedical:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: Statistics
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [4]
  • Reasons: is Medical Information Center established for people to receive comprehensive medical information and advice from specialists free of charge. Need to cross-link with .

Guild Wars Wiki

  • Wiki format: [[GuildWarsWiki:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: [5]
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [6]
  • Reasons: Large wiki concerning the game Guild wars. An older wiki about guild wars of similar size is already on the list as Guildwiki, however, since the move of guildwiki to wikia, links to guildwiki have been replaced by links guildwarswiki in most wikis.
  • Additional note: As also mentioned below, the guildwiki entry points to an old address and should be updated. --Xeeron 15:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Wiki format: [[Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group:]]
  • Interwiki link:
  • Statistics: [7]
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [8]
  • Reasons: The Wiki that is about Web-standards and the official consortium about Web standards


Is possible to add two new interwiki:

-- PersOnLine

MathWorld is not free content and not a wiki. Its accuracy is also sometimes questionable. On the other hand, it is widely linked to; on the English Wikipedia, the template en:Template:MathWorld is used more than 1000 times. -- Jitse Niesen 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What content will the interwiki provide that isn't already in the relevant articles? Nakon 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Existing external link information:

FWIW, has thousands of links on en.wikipedia with no evidence I could find of abuse. has 13; some apparently added by the site's author, others by respected mathematics editors. See this exchange: en:User talk:Clark Kimberling#Links to your work and en:User talk:Oleg Alexandrov/Archive10#New Harmony links. This appears to be one faculty member's project; his project is notable enough to have its own article, en:Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (which has not been edited by User:Clark Kimberling). I should add that User:Clark Kimberling has added valuable, substantive content on en.wikipedia.
Perhaps it would be good to get input from some math editors on these. Once we add something to the interwiki map, we have no ability to track its' usage or who's adding it.
--A. B. (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosetta Code (GFDL Wiki for code snippets) is used to link / outsource code examples from Wikipedia. --Matthias 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't seem to contain enough content for inclusion. Nakon 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been growing. Is it a better candidate now? -- 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wiki of the en:Sugar project, a descendant of olpc:. Prefix sugar: requested. Firefoxman 15:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct links are: en:Sugar (GUI) and$1 ... that said, are there really all that many links that we need an interwiki entry? Kylu 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Existing external link information:

--A. B. (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Commons

Does anyone read this? No one has answered since 29th December. --Joku Janne 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need for [[Creative Commons:]] It's longer than the current [[commons:]] but [[cc:]] as a shortcut makes great sense.--Doug.(talk contribs) 10:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I misunderstood, you're looking for a link to the Creative Commons license pages. Bad idea as it would be likely to confuse others, maybe even some less dense than I.--Doug.(talk contribs) 10:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Labs

I am not sure about "labs", since it is rather generic and has potential to be a namespace for some wikis. May be "wikilabs". Hillgentleman 11:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is more than one labswiki - enlabswiki and delabswiki would be fine by me.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are separate ones needed for separate languages? With the other projects you can do wikibooks:fr:Accueil for example to get to the French Wikibooks rather than needing a separate interwiki for it. Angela 10:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if they're set up in the same way normal wikis are (probably not). OTOH, I see zero need for this - the wikis may be temporary, and there's little need to link to them.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Usability

Accelerating Future Wiki

Looks to me like a copy of the Wikipedia i.e. [15] / [16] (without implementation of Copyrights and therefore in violation of the GNU Free Documentation License). --Aff123a 11:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are using these links internally on only your wikis, you should check out mw:Manual:Interwiki for information on modifying a local copy of the Interwiki map. Nakon 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least one of the wiki's writers (and one of the people adding these links to en.wikiedia), en:User:Jeriaska, has received multiple warnings[17][18][19][20][21][22] (most of them erased by the recipient) for adding these and other links. We have other links that have been added by regular editors so I don't think this is a "spam domain" for Wikimedia's projects. Nevertheless, we have no way to monitor a link's usage once it's added to the interwiki map, so I'm nervous about adding this one given the history. --A. B. (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Wiki format: [[wc:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Cross-wiki link search: 500-odd listed but seems out of date judging by how many are now appearing in enwiki
  • Links from enwiki already: Many hundreds, and growing very rapidly because of the new bot
  • Reasons: A large-scale bot (WebCiteBOT, see request) has begun the task of creating a WebCite archive copy of any external web page referred to as a cited source in articles on the English Wikipedia (and perhaps to be extended to others soon), for good reasons related to stability and linkrot which you can read about at the links above. This means enwiki is starting to build up a huge collection of links to this particular external site, which clog up the already very messy referencing templates. Clearing out extraneous addressing fragments from the mass of wikitext involved in ref formating will make it easier for humans to parse. Implementing this in the interwiki map would avoid having to change the referencing templates to give them a special field for WebCite links, which some might feel privileges a particular archiving website over others. Now I know WebCite isn't a wiki, but this site is beginning to develop a particularly tight integration with the Wikimedia projects that involves vast numbers of links, and the advantages of keeping URL clutter out of the footnoting syntax seem to make this a special case. If we have these kind of abbreviated links to e.g. Slashdot, which isn't a wiki but a normal website - not even a database retrieval kind of site like WebCite is, the case for this one seems much stronger. I've picked "wc" because it's short and sweet, there are already many more links to this website than some of those listed on the interwiki map, and very many more to come, and it doesn't appear to clash with anything in ISO 639. If there is a problem like an ISO 639 clash, I'd suggest "wcite" or "webc" as alternatives. The bot's operator agrees that this would be a useful change. Thanks! 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am the BOT owner of WebCiteBOT. I would be happy to make this change to my code if/when it becomes active. The BOT is still "going slow" at this time, as I make sure there aren't any remaining bugs before I set it loose en mass. When it is running at full speed, it could easily be adding 3000+ links to a day, so obviously the number of affected links will grow rapidly.
I do have a couple of questions:
1) Would such a change affect all Wikipedias a once - there are definitely plans to expand the project to non-english language Wikipedias at some point:
2) Would there be any technical issue with the "$1" having any equal sign or question mark in it such as "query?id=12345678901234567890"?
Also can someone inform when when/if this goes into effect by leaving either me or WebCteBOT a message on enwiki? Thank you, --ThaddeusB 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a heavy user of WebCitation, I would also support this. Anything that can be done to reduce the length of citations is welcome. Huntster (t@c) 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer your questions, 1) After the interwiki map is synced, it will be live on all Wikimedia projects and 2) If all of the links will have the "query?id=" tag in it, it can be included in the URL on the map. Nakon 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wiki format: [[medpedia:]]
  1. Medpedia is a useful resource for peer-reviewed medical information. It is a wiki for health care professionals and patients. It would be beneficial to be able to quickly interlink the two wikis.
  2. Medpedia is updated by healthcare professionals in large part, and is sponsored by a number of academic medical centers. It is assumed this type of oversight will limit the spam content.
  3. Medpedia is currently under the GFDL
  4. Medpedia is definitely a wiki, and seems to be based on the wikimedia platform.
  5. It's currently in its beta stages, but contains thousands of articles
  6. No malware has yet been detected to my knowledge

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellisbjohns (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the requested target link? Nakon 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's more info on the project:
Looks like a good project.
--A. B. (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Very large fan wiki for the Pokémon fandom, a collaborative project between numerous fan-groups, headed by Bulbagarden, one of the primary websites in the fandom.
  2. At the time of writing, is available in 7 languages through the Encyclopaediae Pokémonis network, namely English (Bulbapedia), German (PokéWiki), Japanese (ポケモンWiki), French (Poképédia), Polish (Wikinezka), Portugese (LANDpedia) and Spanish (Pokéteca).
  3. Currently operates under a mix of the CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic (English, Japanese, Polish and Portugese) and CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Generic (German, French and Spanish) license
  4. This wiki has effectively supplanted Wikipedia's Pokémon info following Wikipedia starting to delete and condense its Pokémon info a couple of years back, with many old Wikipedia editors for the Pokémon Project having since moved to Bulbapedia.
  5. The Wikipedia Pokémon Project has adopted a standard practise of migrating old information from Wikipedia to Bulbapedia where appropriate to assist in Wikipedia's continued consensation and deletion of in-universe information related to Pokémon.
  6. Bulbapedia is demonstratively notable in that it holds a Google Pagerank of 5 despite its narrow focus of Pokémon, and in that as of time of writing its parent Bulbagarden records a ranking of 5000 on Quantcast, and a ranking of 5,366 on Alexa. It should be also noted that these rankings are reflective only of the English version of the site (with respect to the entire internet), and not of the entire Encyclopaediae Pokémonis network.
  7. Bulbapedia is also recognized by Wikipedia as the proper location for articles regarding Pokémon. The Wikipedia Manual of Style page regarding writing about fiction specifically lists Bulbapedia under alternative outlets for fictional universe articles.
  8. Bulbapedia is also given recognition from Wikipedia on Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create - "5. Any one of the 56 distinct regions in the Pokémon video game series or lieking mudkipz, or hering dat someon lieks mudkipz. Remember, not everyone is a Pokémon fanatic. Just most people, and they use Bulbapedia."

Jpop Stop!

  • Wiki format: [[jpopstop:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: [25]
  • Reason: Semi-official successor to ThePPN ( for Asian pop music. [26] Also see below for proposed removal of ThePPN.

  • Wiki format: [[lm:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: (version translated by Google)
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [27]
  • Reason: is a unique encyclopedia of the Internet subculture in Russian. It can be used in the Russian Wikipedia as a source of additional information about Internet memes. Moreover, it's a place where could be transfered articles about Internet memes that are considered not important enough for Wikipedia.

Proposed removals

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. Completed requests are marked with {{done}} or {{not done}} and moved to the archives.

Dead link removal

I plan on removing the following dead links from the map in the upcoming week. These sites are dead in the fact that they either a) do not resolve or b) return a domain parking page.

Additional discussion is requested for the following dead but alive links where the site is alive but the actual location is nonexistent (404'd) or has moved. Please note that the $1 variable was taken into account when testing the link.

Thanks, Nakon 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The links in the first batch have been removed. Nakon 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikinfo page has moved from$1 to$1. Soxred93 23:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sil & sul

Both have been added recently, but both are valid ISO 639-3 codes, thus must not be used for other purposes. Please remove. The sooner the better so they won't get used widely. Thanks.

Suggestons for replace: sil → lang; sul → sulcheck.

Danny B. 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have this done as soon as I get a list of all the current uses of this prefix (should be in a few days). Nakon 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sul is widely used now, not really a good idea but sil can be removed if needed ..--Cometstyles 09:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I've asked almost right after it has been added, when it hasn't been widely used yet. I don't know why it hasn't been removed immediately. :-/ So far I remember, there is a rule, that no prefix leading elsewhere than to such language version should match ISO code. What will you do, when sul guys will ask for their own wiki? Fixing now is pretty easy - just run crosswiki bot to do the replaces suggested above.
Danny B. 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they call always be assigned SULwiki: which seems more reasonable and the term SUL has been in existence on wikimedia since late 2002 when Single-user login was just a myth and first preferential should be given to widely used interwiki and I doubt it will ever be used that widely, an example is metawiki: which links to some meatball search engine even though its best suited as an alternate for this wiki..--Cometstyles 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If sul is an iso code, it should be removed as soon as possible. Hillgentleman 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's better to change this now and run an interwiki bot to fix it than to wait until we have a Surigaonon language Wikipedia and SUL: is in even wider use. I don't think denying them the obviously link is really acceptable when we should have checked whether SUL was an iso code at the time. WJBscribe (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at this, I think there is no reason to remove as the Surigaonon language is not that widely spoken and I don't think we will get any requests for that wiki creation as its an individual living language, not many people speak it..--Cometstyles 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a valid reason, see similar example (a set precedent). Cbrown1023 talk 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to w:Surigaonon language it is spoken by 300 Number of people speaking a language doesn't seem to have resulted in requests for wikis being turned down in the past. We have projects in quite obscure languages - I don't think it's right to presume we won't have a Surigaonon language project at some point in the future. WJBscribe (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the updating comes in batches, I suggest that we remove it now; we can always add it back if the discussion turns out that way. Hillgentleman 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would agree with HIllgentleman. Cbrown1023 talk 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does someone have an interwiki bot that can switch over current uses of SUL: to SULcheck: to avoid breaking links? WJBscribe (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have removed SUL and SIL for the moment. WJBscribe, I don't know how if interwiki bot would be useful: locating the existing internal links on a wiki requires local knowledge on categorification. A question to mediawiki programmers: in case there is a conflict in namespace, language code, and interwiki map, what is the current order of priority? An idea is maybe we could keep the SUL for backward compatibility, and discourage its use. After all, the current uses of sul:username are unlikely to cause future conflicts with the future interwiki links to the future sul-wikipedia, except perhaps for a wiki-celebrity. Hillgentleman 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please also add an alternative for [sil:], for example [silcode:]. Thanks, SPQRobin (inc!) 13:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest silutil or else people will become crazy remembering which way round it is. Hillgentleman 06:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't matter to me which prefix it is, I'd just like to have an interwiki prefix to use :-) SPQRobin (inc!) 22:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The wiki owner has been spamming en.wikipedia. For better control and transparency, we should remove this from the interwiki map and require the use of external links versus interwiki links. See:

--A. B. (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Sensible removal. WJBscribe (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all, I'm Jay Fang, one of the founders of I think I myself and ChinaTravelGuide have been wronged on this issue. Unfortunately I did not even know what happened until wp told me I had a new message from SiobhanHansa. My explanation is at What happened to ChinaTravelGuide. We did not spam wp. I'd appreciate if admins can take a look to make a final decision. JayFang 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the information just posted at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject (permanent link); most of the links were added by IPs in Southern California or one of three registered users. Our link report shows virtually no links added by established users. --A. B. (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, A. B. and all, see my post at WikiProject discussion. Thanks. JayFang 07:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The "wiki:"-mapping is a copy of "C2:" but not logical. All entries are Wikis, so why should one of them get the prefix "wiki"? Also, most users of Wikipedia call it "Wiki" so they expect "Wiki:" to be an abbrevation of "Wikipedia:". Thus I request that this confusing interwiki link is removed. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly support removing this. Laaknor 08:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My support, as well. --EivindJ 08:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support removal but will not support it being used as a link to wikipedia..--Cometstyles 10:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as it is. This prefix has a long history, and is used by default on all MediaWiki installations. Removing it would not only create a discrepancy, but will also break lots of existing links. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Easy to run a bot on all projects to replace it.
    Danny B. 12:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How do you make sure you find all of the links? Do you use google, mediawiki search, or something else? Hillgentleman 02:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not illogical for wiki: to point to the first wiki, and people ought to stop saying "wiki" when they mean Wikipedia. Removing this link won't solve anything. I think it should stay. Angela 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This wiki was proposed for addition in November 2006 and rejected for legal concerns, before being added in December of 2007. However, as they note themselves, here, they no longer attempt to pay royalties but rather shelter behind DMCA: "Fortunately we’re protected by the DMCA. After trying unsuccessfully for a long time to pay royalties to anyone who would take them in the music industry, we realized we are protected. We have registered an official DMCA agent, so if an artist wishes to have their lyrics removed, they just need to send a request. We have not had a single request sent to us." Copyright concerns not only persist, but have apparently worsened. (Context: I'm an admin at english language Wikipedia busily removing links to this website from our articles. My first edit here; pardon me, please, if I've misformatted anything. --Moonriddengirl 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with and endorse this request. The site clearly disregards copyrights and should, if anything, be blacklisted. Stifle 14:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. What will it take to get something to happen on this? Clearly one comment a month isn't doing much.Kww 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse this. The site does carry a variety of public domain lyrics or freely licensed lyrics (these are becoming increasingly common), but ideally we want to link to resources under our control by uploading any such lyrics to Wikisource, so that they don't break all our links when the record industry takes them out. :-P Dcoetzee 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongly endorse removal, and consider for blacklisting. Triplestop 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikia links

As all Wikia wikis can be linked to via [[Wikia:Projectname:Article name]], shouldn't all the Wikia links be removed? There's about 10 in total.--Otterathome 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so; not only would this break a slew of links, but some of the wikis are plenty large to warrant their own interwiki entry (I'm thinking chiefly of Wookieepedia). EVula // talk // // 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think large isn't necessarily the same as importance. We ought to look at how many times such sites are actually linked to, and in what capacity. Majorly talk 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove per the perception of self-dealing of a sitting WMF Board member, and the head of the Advisory Board. -- Thekohser 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As much as the discussion on Uncyclopedia appears to be the work of one user with an agenda to push, I'm a little unsure about the wider question of whether we should be linking to Wikia at all. That has received outside attention from online media, due to the self-dealing issues perceived and widely reported since at least 2007. Might be worth taking a look at Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis, Nik Cubrilovic, TechCrunch, April 28, 2007 and related discussion, including en:Template talk:Wikia#External_instead_of_interwiki_links locally. The effect of making [[wikia: an internal link while wikis of similar calibre hosted elsewhere are forced onto external links is to artificially manipulate page rankings in search engines (the external link gets the 'no-follow' tag, the [[wikia: prefix does not). This is being perceived and widely reported as the use of Wikipedia resources to promote for-profit Wikia, an issue that is a perceived conflict of interest because of the overlap between founders and persons in other key positions between the two organisations. The resources of a donation-funded non-profit encyclopedia should not be used to selectively promote one for-profit commercial concern in this manner. Perhaps both the interwiki and the en:template:Wikia should be deleted? -- 12:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi ! We have a problem on fr-wikipedia because of Shakti:, an interwiki prefix that seems to refer to an obsolete link. Because of that, we can't create the movie title : Shakti: The Power (Shakti (2002 film) on en), according to the typographic conventions. Does anybody have a solution to this problem ? Could this prefix be removed if unused ?

Regards Stef48 -- 08:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Shakti is not a language but a religious and philisophical concept.

Could anybody answer this request, please ? Shakti: refers to a dead link and we'd need it to be removed. Thanks. --Voxhominis 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) PS : Previous request here.Reply[reply]


Site was lost to server crash. Recovery effort was unsuccessful. [28] Has been semi-officially replaced by Jpop Stop; see above for proposed addition.

Requests for updates

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 current [[oldwikisource:]] does not allow "classical" interwiki linking (a link in "In other languages" section in sidebar). So either allow it or - if it could cause problems - create new, eg. [[wikisources:]] or [[multiwikisource:]] which would have the intended behavior. (and move this request to proper section above then)
Danny B. 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you clarify what is meant by "either allow it"? Is that a change here to some map entry? if so, what change? If not, maybe this is a bugzilla issue? I have no prob adding the new prefixes, but what would they map to? Sorry for not being clear on what is asked for by you, any clarification appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the "oldwikisource" site, more or less, dead? My understanding was that it was originally one multi-language site, and then split into different languages (,, etc). Adding interwikis to it seems to run contrary to this, though I will admit that I could be mistaken. EVula // talk // // 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Lar 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC): currently [[oldwikisource:foo]] does not add an item in "In other languages" section in sidebar, but behaves like classical inline link inside text. If I'm not mistaken, this is caused by some flag in interwiki map which sets if ([[foo:bar]] will behave like item in sidebar section and [[:foo:bar]] will be used for inline links) OR ([[foo:bar]] will be used for inline links).
@ EVula 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC): It's still being used by "small" languages.
@ both: The deal is, that currently is impossible to add in pages classical interwiki to appropriate pages on multilingual Wikisource.
Danny B. 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danny B. as you may not have realised I'm actually not very savvy about this stuff despite being one of the folks that does a fair number of updates. What specific change are you proposing? Right now, the page has:
... what do you want it to say instead? What prefix or prefixes, and what link or links? If something else than a change to links is being asked for, as I said, it may be a thing to raise as a bug instead of a prefix/link change. Thanks, and sincere apologies for not getting what you are driving at! ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pinged Danny B. about this on his talk, if we don't get closure on this within a few more weeks I suggest we close this as not done. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X mark.svg Not done issues not resolved. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki puts a classical "in other languages" interwiki if the prefix is a valid language code — VasilievVV 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for late response, I somehow missed this page. :-/
What I was proposing is the interwiki prefix which will put a link to to "in other languages" sidebar which [[oldwikisource:]] does not do. If you'll write [[oldwikisource:foo]] it will appear simply in text like oldwikisource:foo instead of appearing in sidebar while inline linking to language versions is normally done via prefixing the interwiki with the colon ([[:en:foo]] eg.).
Now the central Wikisource contains a bunch of languages which aren't linkable through "in other languages" section since there's no such interwiki prefix which would allow it. And since [[oldwikisource:]] is already widely used and changing of its behavior from no-colon-for-inline-links to colon-needed-for-inline-links would break probably lots of pages, I've proposed new interwiki which would behave as regular link to "other languages".
Example: on s:cs:Anton Pavlovič Čechov there are three links to en, ro and ru, however, on central Wikisource theres oldwikisource:Anton Pavlovic Cekov which is currently unlinkable in "in other languages" section due to lack of this style linking to central Wikisource. So say putting [[wikisources:Anton Pavlovic Cekov]] would put say "Central" to the list of interwikis in "in other languages" section.
Is it a bit clearer now?
Danny B. 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's something you have to ask for in BugZilla:. Titoxd(?!?) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YouTube Wiki?

  1. Is there already a YouTube wiki?
  2. Do you have do pay web-hosting fees or does Wikia cover that? --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a YouTube wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our hosting costs are covered through grants and other donations. More information is available at wmf:Fundraising_FAQ Nakon 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be thinking about Wikia, which does have a YouTube wiki, located here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates: worth being aware

Worth being aware of [29] where Brion makes a good humored complaint about the hassle of doing updates. I wonder whether we could make life easier for him by doing whatever security checks he refers to here and making it less frequent? Perhaps we should try to minimise edits to the list? Thoughts anyone? --AndrewCates 09:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to add despite the comment there appears to have been an update in the last few days for which we should thank Brion. --AndrewCates 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long does it take?

I was just wondering how long it takes to get these done? - LA @ 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know. But there has been an update since 20 August since stable: is in there and WikiFur: has been updated. Interwiki map needs updating with this information. GreenReaper 04:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like there's a backlog. Is any meta admin looking at this page these days? VasileGaburici 19:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BugZilla creation this Sunday for update request

Hi, I will create this Sunday a bugzilla ticket to request to update the interwiki-map. This will no mean the will actulay do it the soon bnut it is posible. I would advice to try to get done what ever needs to get done to the list by then. --Walter 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug created bugzilla:15989 --Walter 08:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creatures Wiki

Could someone update CreaturesWiki to go to$1? We're moving onto this new domain shortly - it will work as a redirect until then. GreenReaper 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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).

Bug 16356 - broken interwikiprefix

The interwiki links on this site must be with underline instead of a blank. Any letter makes problem: Ĉej: is defined (live list), but does not work. Thanks for correcting them. --Der Umherirrende 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other discussions

Other usable prefixes

It should be noted at the top of the Interwiki map page that there are a number of other prefixes that can be used. For instance, w: goes to Wikipedia. The reason they must be kept separate is because of language mapping. w: on will take you to, on the German Wiktionary it will take you to to the German Wikipedia etc.

As far as I know (mid-2006), there is no way for a page editor to discover these important interwiki links. The admin can check the database table, of course, but that's hardly usable. An extension exists but it needs a little more attention before it can be integrated into Mediawiki.

Inclusion criteria clarification?

There's been considerable discussion of this on wikien-l just recently. (Not because wikien-l is the list for Meta, but because en:wp has stupidly high Google page rank. So third party SEO spammers want us to give them points with fourth party Google, and never mind us, our editors or our readers ...)

Jonathan Stokes came up with a good first draft of suggested criteria, which I slightly reworded as follows:

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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) be reasonably developed.
Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered by the Wikimedia community to be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to Wikimedia projects, and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki links.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

Note that I made the deletion procedure the absolute simplest possible: trust Meta admins' judgement.

Are these clear? Are they sensible? Do they reflect the Meta admins' conception of the job here? - David Gerard 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is most sensible. Sj 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support the general thrust of this, and the principles outlined seem spot on. However, did you cut his para about the consensus process? This page can have somewhat sporadic traffic, so just not having any opposition for some fixed period may not necessarily be sufficient. Perhaps just trusting judgement is sufficient. But it has been said that removal is a process that can introduce issues for wikis that used links with removed prefixes, so perhaps something more is required. I don't know for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I left that out to avoid a comparison to any articles-for-deletion page. The trick is that I don't know how to tell where interwiki links are being used across the various projects. I'll ask on wikitech-l - David Gerard 12:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam and link syntax shouldn't have anything to do with each other. If you want a nofollow whitelist, make a nofollow whitelist. It should be possible to link to untrusted sites using interwiki link syntax, and it shouldn't be necessary to replace all external links to a site with interwiki links in order to obtain the pagerank benefits.

For instance, any free hosting site with an advertising affiliate system will have a spam problem. Such a site may well be a wiki, they may well have a great deal of useful free content, and so we might want to support interwiki link syntax. But they may have some users who abuse the service, creating throwaway accounts and spamming Wikipedia. Nofollow would be an acceptable response to that.

On the other side of the coin, URL-style links to Wikimedia websites should clearly not have rel=nofollow. URL syntax is much more versatile than interwiki link syntax, so there are many cases where interwiki linking within the Wikimedia group of websites is not appropriate.

By linking the two essentially unrelated properties, you create pressure on meta admins to add more interwiki prefixes. Adding interwiki prefixes damages the stability of the site by making conflicting titles unreachable. The ability to create pages that start with the same prefix is lost, which may cause problems in the future for the many diverse wikis that use the interwiki map. I routinely remove potentially conflicting new prefixes from the interwiki map before I run the update script, and I don't want to be coming under fire from commercial sites trying to make a living from Wikimedia's pagerank when I do so.

-- Tim Starling 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, what would you accept in a patch to implement this in a manner not to make this a pain in the backside for the devs?
(And, of course, something to check if an interwiki prefix is in use would still be useful as a separate issue.) - David Gerard 13:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tim, would you be willing to make available somewhere the list of conflciting new prefixes that you removed so we can know not to use them again (some prefixes may be suggested for more than one wiki...)? ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before devolving again into the "nofollow/patch" debate, the immediate issue here is that this page contains no clear criteria for inclusion in the InterWiki Map. This confusion allows for the much publicized conspiracy theory that Wikia receives preferential treatment from Wikipedia. Simply providing a one paragraph explanation (like David's above) at the top of this page would dispell these much-hyped internet rumors, as it would become clear why Wikia and other sites are included on this list. Jonathan Stokes17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we could ignore the nofollow paragraph as that really is a separate issue. As is finding out if interwiki prefixes are actually being used ('cos we don't know now). So the only remaining question that changes anything right now is how Tim rejects prefixes - David Gerard 08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[30] Well, that's one. - David Gerard 10:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new suggested wording:

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

This leaves out nofollow, which is indeed a separate problem. It doesn't address how to know if interwiki prefixes are actually in use, but that's no change. And looking at the history, the devs will change or remove any conflicting interwiki as needed, so no change there either.

Is the above suitable for the content page? Is it actually more or less how things are understood to be now?

The special mention of Wikia on the content page probably doesn't help confusion ... - David Gerard 10:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thumbs up. I think these 5 criteria are enough to satisfy the Wikia conspiracy theorists, dispell allegations of favoritism, and provide a reference point for folks that don't understand why sites are/aren't included. Looks good. Jonathan Stokes19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't like point 4. Why should it be a wiki?
I have seen on the list Mediawiki install which are far from being good and seem like a install to have a wikipedia, see for example [31] 2/3 of its pages are years or days (ie. templates). 6 registered users. Moreover, a mediawiki doesn't mean it's freely editable.
On the other hand there're sites like digg which are not wikis but really user powered.
IMHO, the concept should be broader, like straightforward to be user contributed (like a wiki).
Platonides 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Platonides, I agree. But note this is worded as guidelines, not rules. It says, "Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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." Jonathan Stokes 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There probably should be a clear and compelling reason to include a non wiki (that is, make the bar somewhat but not insurmountably higher). Certainly many of the nonwiki sites on there now make a great deal of sense to have on there. And some do not. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree with the motivation behind this move and fully support expanding 'follow' to good sites, I also strongly favor Tim's view that the interwiki map should be limited to wikis and a few highly-used free content sites because of the need to think of and create more and more interwiki prefixes. The interwiki map was also never intended to be a follow whitelist. It would be far better in my view, to simply have a 'follow' whitelist and to develop clear guidelines on listing sites there. A few suggested guidelines:

  1. Automatically include all .gov, .mil and .edu sites (perhaps other restricted TLDs)
  2. High content to ads/crap/list
  3. If ads present, then they must be small tasteful and unobtrusive
  4. Authoritative; Does the author have special training or experience in his/her field? Is the content vetted somehow? Has the site won awards for content?
  5. If login required to view full content, then at least provide useful summaries and full selected content (thinking specifically of journal websites)

I'm not sure of what exactly to do with the current situation though ('follow' on for any interwiki link) and think we should set that aside until after we develop a policy for a 'follow' whitelist. Finally, let's remember the original purpose of interwiki links; easy linking between wikis. --Daniel Mayer 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel, if there were to be a "follow" whitelist, I think you've laid out good ground rules. However, if word got out of a WP:Whitelist, I imagine there would be thousands - even tens of thousands - of requests for inclusion. As well as the ensuing haggling over who is included and not included. It could be a big kettle of fish. Jonathan Stokes 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We definitely don't want to automatically include all .edu sites. Many of these are being abused by spammers because of their high google rank. See this diff for example. Angela 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action... Any objections to adding David's wording (above) to the header of this page? All in favor? If no one else responds for a few days, I'll go ahead and make the change. Jonathan Stokes 04:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objection: I am not in favor of the expanded use that these guidelines might cause. I would very much like to see some note along the lines of: "It must be shown that the link could or would be widely used". If a website would not normally qualify under a local projects WP:EL then I think we do that wiki a disservice by adding it to the interwikimap. Also, if a link is only apropriate on a small set of articles (A game's wiki, for example) then we are losing the powerful external link tracking tools with hardly any benefit at all. J.smith 15:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Wording

J.Smith, a fair point. Is the wording under section (1) sufficient? For clarity, I assume we are proposing to place this wording at the top of this talk page under the heading "Proposed Additions." Jonathan Stokes 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

existing interwiki links don't comply with this policy

Slight problem I'm noticing with the policy as currently proposed, specifically around items 3 and 4. A lot of existing interwiki links fit neither criteria -- for example, WikiHow (not creative commons I believe), Google (neither wiki nor GNU), (neither wiki nor GNU), IMDB (neither wiki nor GNU). I would argue that:

A) There needs to be consistency for policy for existing links as well as new proposals. So, the policy as currently proposed should result in a number of interwiki links being removed -- and I imagine that would wreak havoc with those accustomed to using them....

B) These criteria are too restrictive -- there's a lot of very useful stuff on IMDB. Why wouldn't we have interwiki links to them, even if the site isn't free? The purpose of interwiki links is to ease the inclusion of links to material that may be relevant to our readers. Sometimes that content is GNUed but often it is not, and that should not be a barrier to smoothing its inclusion.

What do others think? Parkerconrad 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposed policy says "probably" rather than "must" so I would think a number of the existing links, besides being grandfathered (and thus being subject to a "pretty pressing need to remove" requirement before I would support them being removed), many of them qualify under more than 1 of the 5 even if not all 5 clauses. So I think it's OK. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see -- so the five items are meant as more of five different axes or criteria along which inclusion is judged, rather than as a "you must have all five of these things to be included"? IE, if you're strong in four but lack a fifth, then that's ok? Parkerconrad 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's certainly the way I see it! I can't speak for others but that's the reasonable interpretation, I think. I have a hard time imagining that we'd delete any of the examples you gave... they're all too important. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wikiHow licensing is Creative Commons, by-nc-sa --Versageek 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have our own projects that don't seem to comply with this. I don't think Bugzilla qualifies as a wiki, for instance. Perhaps "is a wiki" in and of itself is a bad term and will attract rules-lawyers. How about "is a freely indexable or searchable site?" Has anyonne considered, also, the ramifications for sites not WMF-projects which use our map also? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that this discussion has kind of petered out... bummer. I think it's important we develop some clear guidelines on what to include and what not to include. To this end I make this recomendation: (Official WMF projects - automatic inclusion?)
  • The site must...
  1. ...have a wide enough focus as to make the interwiki link usefull
  2. respectable (as defined within the context of the subject matter)
  3. ...have something worth linking to
  • The site should...
  1. freely licensed (GNU, CC, etc)
  2. freely accessible
  3. non-profit
  • The site must not...
  1. ...have a history of spamming on our projects
  2. ...contain content which may be illegal. (copyvio, etc)
Just my two cents... The should, to me, are negotiable and leave us the wiggleroom for worthy sites like google, IMDB, etc. J.smith 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that you've tried to restart this, J.smith. I think your guidelines have merit. But I also think David Gerard's ones, above, in italics, are reasonable as well, especially since they include "is a wiki" (as one but not the only criteria). I'd also prefer some acknowledgement that not all sites we add fit every criteria (and that's ok!) One thing that I think is vital, which neither guideline addresses, is the process for addition here. I think it is very important that the addition or removal decision, no matter how well a site fits the guidelines, be a consensus driven process. To that end I think any addition needs to be proposed, and then sit for some reasonable number of days, to see if it elicits comment, approval or objections. Granted, some of the sites proposed here have sat for far too long but I also think that we should not have a proposal of a site, and then an addition of the site, within the same day, as happened recently with Things should sit for at least 4 to 5 days I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making changes

Please propose changes here first, before making them, as there may be reasons not to make the change. We have had an increasing number of changes just made unilaterally, and I'm not sure that's a good approach. The Pennsylvania chapter of WMF wiki for example, may be handled a different way, we tend to handle official wikimedia sites differently if I recall. Also Shizao made a change without explaining what it is or why, again. I will be reverting these changes pending discussion. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are there any charts which show the proportion of wiki articles/editing/traffic and how they are linked to each other? Would this be too dominated by Wikipedia to be at all useful? With the number of articles being transwikied (well, at least in talk if not in practice) off of Wikipedia, this number should at least grow. 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such a chart would be very interesting, but I suspect would require a lot of data collection to create. I'm not aware of one but would love to see it if it exists. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disadvantages of interwiki links

See Help:Interwiki linking#Interwiki links versus external links.--Patrick (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] and the use of interwiki links

Seeing that we had an interwiki link for IMDb, I proposed a change to a template on at wikipedia:Template talk:Infobox Film#IMDb interwiki link. It was denied by an admin, citing concerns about using such links in the article namespace because of mirrors and forks. I'm a bit new to this whole interwiki map thing, so I thought I would ask if this had been considered before. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny you should mention that. I happened to be completely independently nosing around an actor article, noticed that the IMDb link was still external, said hm... didn't I add IMDbName: ??? tested it, it worked, and found there is a template there for it... went there and left a message about it ... apparently there was resistance to the change 2 years ago. See w:Template_talk:Imdb_name specifically this version: [32] I sort of think what is the point of people asking to have links added here if they don't plan to use them. But maybe that's just an en:wp thing? Or old news? Thanks for bringing this up. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say it's a wikipedia thing (especially There interwiki links are useful for other projects. --Steinninn 04:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE about adds

A number of requests have been added at the bottom and did not follow the template. Please remember to use the template as it collects all the info needed, and make your requests in the proper section. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generic Wikimedia prefix

With so many sites at, I'm surprised that there is no generic "wikimedia" prefix, like the "wikia" one. Instead we have (not very useful imho) Wm2005, Wm2006, etc. (Just wanted to make an internal link to -AlexSm 15:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also