Talk:Interwiki map

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days.

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, including the purpose of the site
  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. Before adding a new entry to the interwiki map, use this tool to check whether any existing page names conflict with the proposed prefix.

Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page in the removals section and will be decided on by a Meta admin.[edit] was the old domain name of the wiki before the move in 2016. All the links to are automatically redirected to

Link:$1 prefix:Transit:

  1. stable link :$1
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site
    • Allows easy linking to detailed transit information. The wiki is designed specifically as a travel guide on public transportation. Some users on Wikipedia tried to include detailed transit information for specific locations but got rejected because such information takes too much space relative to other relevant contents and not meeting the purpose of Wikipedia. See [1] for example. and Wikipedia have separate purposes for the same transit system or transit infrastructure: one focuses on being a user guide and directory, the other focuses on background, history, and controversies.
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
    • has operated for a decade spam free. User accounts are manually approved.
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
    • CC BY-SA 3.0
  4. be a wiki
    • yes
  5. have reasonable amounts of content
    • 37,043 content pages covering transit routes (down to individual route level), transit centers/stations, and community destinations.
  6. not contain malware
    • no malware.

Acnetj (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see about 70 links on wikis to; and no links to How much do you believe it is going to be used?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no direct lines to because the old links to got redirected to automatically. There should be at least 70 links. Acnetj (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Link:$1 prefix:wikitrek:

WikiTrek is an open project aimed to convert it:HyperTrek from a custom-made dynamic site to a wiki based on MediaWiki.
HyperTrek is the most comprehensive guide to en:Star Trek in Italian, but it is no longer actively maintained. To update the site, improve collaboration and simplify contributions, all the data have been transferred from the old site to new wiki. This wiki already has several contributors and we think the user base will increase in due time.

Italian Wikipedia already tooks data from Hypertrek, but it does not make sense to duplicate that information: this is lenghty manual process. With this conversion, the content of the site was automatically converted to a MediaWiki site and, implementing this interwiki link, all the content con be linked directly from Wikipedia. So users an take advantage from a complete data set and easy linking with no manual work.

Tu summarize:

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site
    It is the most comprehensive guide to Star Trek in italian
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
    spam does not exist on the site and the community will take care this will be the case in future as well
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
    texts are released under CC BY-SA 4.0 or GFDL
  4. be a wiki
    it is a wiki based on standard MediaWiki installation
  5. have reasonable amounts of content
    site currently has more than 14.000 pages
  6. not contain malware
    it does not contain any malware

Lucamauri (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Support I support this project because is the natural evolution of HyperTrek. --Hypertrek (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Support Support I support this project. It is an up-to-date blending between a classical hypertext project started decades ago, and an interactive, editable by everyone portal, in the spirit of the wiki initiatives. Afullo (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record: there are 488 links to on it.wikipedia, although 337 of these are just links to the front page and the rest appear to be concentrated on a few articles. There are also 33 links to PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Link:$1 prefix:lenciclopedia:

L'Enciclopèdia (formerly known as Uiquipèdia) is a wiki encyclopedia project written in Valencian, but using orthography from the Real Acadèmia de Cultura Valenciana (El Puig Rules), which defends an ortographical and grammar standard completely different from standard Catalan (as regulated by the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua and the Institut d'Estudis Catalans), used in the Catalan/Valencian Wikipedia (Viquipèdia). This website fulfills the six criteria for inclusion and I propose to add it to the interwiki map. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)



Prefix: mariowikide or demariowiki

To summarize: 1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site: is the German counterpart to, which already is included in the interwiki list and the largest independent German site about Mario-related topics.

2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: Of course I won't encourage our contributors to spam links in Wikipedia, also most of the Mario-related articles in the German Wikipedia already have weblinks in the classic format to articles. On our wiki, we don't have any spam problems. free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): our articles are licensed with CC-by-NC-SA.

4. be a wiki: self-hosted MediaWiki-based wiki

5. have reasonable amounts of content: currently almost 6000 articles

6.not contain malware: no ads, no external scripts, up-to-date software. Should not be in risk of becoming a malware-spreading site.

Semako96 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically we can already link there using mariowiki:Special:GoToInterwiki/de:Spezies (although that is definitely not convenient). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, there are 84 links to on de.wikipedia. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment - 6000 articles (and 84 existing links) doesn't seem like a lot of content. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)



  • Prefix : wmflabsdeploy
  • Well I just found it weird, that our own beta cluster is not on interwiki map.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing in that wiki interesting to link to IIRC. What do we need an IW prefix for? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A possible usage could be to use it for easy navigation from here to that wiki cluster, though I do not believe I would use it much myself. --Vogone (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
What permanent links were you envisaging? From which wikis? Can you please provide some real use examples.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
billinghurst, during the content translation testing on that beta cluster (few years back) I have to use url instead of interwiki link, though it's currently no longer needed (as content translation extension is already deployed), I would like to see if deployment got interwiki linked so in the future there will be no longer hassle of doing this, I saw the practicality in this. Also, if it possible to this link site matrix or the meta itself, as an addendum I am fine if this request get rejected, I just thought this gonna make things easier for beta tester to do things that got reported to phab and need interwiki linking to here. PS : also per external search here on meta and en.wp :

Thank you.--AldNonymousBicara? 10:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, Aldnonymous, and MarcoAurelio: I just came here to ask for literally the same thing - on enwiki, I wanted to have the history of [2] be imported to w:en:User:DannyS712/Tag.js, but Xaosflux told me I needed to ask here that a mapping be added first. Am I correct in my understanding that adding such a deployment mapping would also allow access to the entire interwiki map of the beta cluster (specifically the english wikipedia)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: not per your url, unless there is another way to rewrite/remap your url with which is the request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: But maps exactly to the page? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: do you know if most users of that cluster are aware of that syntax? — xaosflux Talk 22:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: it uses the same syntax interwiki map that we do here (see --DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I mean using "$" vs "$" for example. — xaosflux Talk 23:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I have no idea what other users know, or what other users there currently are - I use the beta cluster to build scripts and experiment with things that I can't really do on-wiki, but there isn't a community that I can ask. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW, support - since we have no issue making IW's for individual TOOL use on wmflabs, making one for the entire wiki should be no big deal. Perhaps 'wmflabsdeploy' would be better title though. — xaosflux Talk 23:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Changed the prefix based on this suggestion, thank you.--AldNonymousBicara?
    Also changed the title to wmflabsdeploy.--AldnonymousBicara? 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Really? Aren't you just inviting misspellings. Just keep "deployment" and keep it simple, the first part of the name is the focus, not the end. Noting that I still haven't seen a rigorous reason for the addition, and how it would be used by a wide spectrum of people. I just see these small one-off cases linking to a dynamic environment with presumably no rules about redirects and all endpoints.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Eh, I am fine with any name, rather I just want the interwiki map exist, I don't care about the name as long its usable. billinghurst, you can change the name if you wanted to.--AldnonymousBicara? 01:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, people shouldn't link to the Beta Cluster wiki from production, and this one in particular is a terrible one to which to link as its config doesn't mirror any "real" Wikimedia wiki very closely. Also, the entire Beta Cluster system is roughly planned to get shut down and replaced in the future. I don't think it's a good idea to add this. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Jdforrester (WMF): would the labs' meta wiki be better? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @DannyS712: I suppose you could do that, but I'm not sure how often it'd be used? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Jdforrester (WMF): the interwiki mapping within the beta cluster means that adding a mapping for one site lets you access them all. Personally, I just want to be able to have a script I developed ( be imported properly. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Import as a once-off? What is wrong with copy and paste? Interwiki map seems overkill for task.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    If you don't mean import, and you are meaning utilising mw.loader.load.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: this was related to an XML upload import request, we'll do it one way or another, but if this IW was going to be added we could add it with the 'right' prefix. — xaosflux Talk 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Jdforrester (WMF):, wait, this is new to me, beta cluster is going to be shut down?--AldnonymousBicara? 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Aldnonymous: Yeah, on-going discussions for years now, but no solid plan. We're overall moving to continuous deployment, where we'd create automatic staging environments as we go, and probably some means to spin one up manually on a patch both pre- and post-merge. There's more in this requirements doc. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


  • prefix: wikimania:

Just a request to add the "full version" of the name (wikimania:), to supplement the "short version" that already exists (wmania:). Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quiddity: Yes check.svg loaded though not pushed to phabricator.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1= — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)}}

@Billinghurst: What about all the pages under Special:PrefixIndex/wikimania:? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I reckon that those pages can be moved to wmania: and put into the 2005: namespace, then we can fix the redirects  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
That would work. We could also keep them on Meta-Wiki and move them to subpages under Wikimania 2005 city, Wikimania 2005 meetings, etc. Which do you prefer? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume if most of these pages are external link targets, all these links will break, no matter if we move these pages elsewhere or not (provided we keep "wikimania:" as iw prefix for the new Wikimania wiki). I am also not quite sure that I understand the reason why they were left here on meta instead of wm2005:. Are they even older than the wiki? --Vogone (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To answer the last part of your comment: Based on the history of the Main Page, the revisions with the lowest ID numbers, and the early log entries, it looks like the Wikimania 2005 wiki was created sometime around 2 March 2005. (However, strangely, there is a single log entry from 2003 -- a bug? Seems like a DB error considering it is listed prior to the entry granting Elian sysop/crat access.) Many of these Meta-Wiki articles were created before that, such as Wikimania:Name/Vote from late October 2004. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The plan is for all the old wm20nn: wikis to be moved to wmania:20nn, so moving the existing pages, and creating suitable redirects seems the appropriate measure. Once moved, and required tweaks implemented, my plan is to write filters to pretty well shut down editing in the 20nn: namespaces anyway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site: Yes. It is a wiki on math, physics, and philosophy, with a slant toward category theory. There are already ~400 links to it from Wikimedia projects according to toollabs:globalsearch/globallinks.php.
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: Yes, of course.
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Technically no. However, it is at least free-ish in spirit: "Using and distributing content obtained from the nLab is free and encouraged if you acknowledge the source, as usual in academia. (There is currently no consensus on a more formal license statement, but if it matters check if relevant individual contributors state such on their nLab homepages.)"
  4. be a wiki: Yes.
  5. have reasonable amounts of content: Yes, it has 13905 pages.
  6. not contain malware: Yes, of course.

PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)



Prefix: PAWS

Per discussion at phab:T150094, it is requested that an interwiki prefix be created for linking to code hosted on PAWS. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Question Question: are paws-public and paws the same thing? To me there seems a little variation in what you see, though I cannot say that I tried variations with positional parameters. I also find it a little disconcerting that we are providing interwikis to an undocumented service, and one, when you hit it, gives zero information about what it does, nor links to what the service provides. A landing page like is simply rubbish, and I wouldn't think that we should be providing rubbish, meaningless targets.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: paws-public allows others to view code and related - going to returns an error unless signed in as DannyS712 bot, while going to lets you see the code for one of the bot tasks without needing permission. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Quoting billinghurst:
"I also find it a little disconcerting that we are providing interwikis to an undocumented service, and one, when you hit it, gives zero information about what it does, nor links to what the service provides. A landing page like is simply rubbish, and I wouldn't think that we should be providing rubbish, meaningless targets."
@Billinghurst: I have to say I find your words here a tad harsh. I have no idea what documentation you would like and your message does not make clear what doubts would need to be cleared up. Ironically, there is also no documentation on what documentation would be needed for a proposed addition to the interwiki map beyond the instructions up here. Beyond not being exactly a wiki, (but being user editable) PAWS clearly fulfills the other 5 criteria.
Let me also try to bring extra information that might be useful. paws-public and paws are parts of the same project, while paws brings access to user servers that can be used to create, edit and run a variety of scripts paws-public is the way to access the scripts in any user working area. In a nutshell, paws-public is the only interwiki destination that makes sense, besides admins and the users themselves, no one else can access a running user server in paws. paws-public is a very simple component with a toolforge tool with direct http access and an autoindex http server feature (a pretty standard feature). There is also a fancy Lua script that translates user names to global ids, so points to . It is mostly used through a button pointing to the paws-public component from each notebook in paws. It can also be used through a simple change of paws to paws-public in any part of the url in PAWS. IE, can be changed to or to get toçalo.ipynb.
Finnally, please remember we are all volunteers here and destructive criticism for a simple request will get us nowhere. Please indicate what further information is necessary and what documentation you would like to see while refraining from calling a popular volunteer-maintained project "rubish". Phabricator is also the best place to suggest any improvement on the PAWS project, please file a task with any suggestion on the paws-public html interface and perhaps I or another volunteer can work on it.
Chico Venancio (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chicocvenancio: You say that PAWS meets the six dot point criteria, but if I go to or ... how do or where do I see that it meets that criteria? So I think that whilst you may see it as self-evident, I am not certain that the request has yet to achieve the "clearly" criteria as it is neither obvious nor declared. Further I see that we have 49 usage examples, and what is the significant numbers and the reasonable amount of content?

PAWS is sitting there as an isolated, unlinked, unexplained service, and a dead-end target with little context. Now if I dig around WMF wikis, I can find wikitech:PAWS, mw:Manual:Pywikibot/PAWS and mw:PAWS though only as a knowledgeable person of arcane-WMF-wikiness. Contrarily when I end up at PAWS, I end up in an isolated, unlinked, unexplained service. With the existing interwiki links the target urls are pretty much self-evident in their relevance, either from the link itself, or when arrived at as a target, this is not the case with the proposed PAWS usage. This proposal would appear to me to be new usage type, and seemingly proposed as it is an WMF-offered service, not due to it being part of the originally envisaged scope of the interwiki map.

Whilst my commentary may be uncomplimentary, I challenge that it is destructive. I made ZERO comment about the service at all, my comment was clearly about the targets. I am also not certain that it is up to me to go digging and making any phabricator tickets for a service which is pretty unknown to me. I will also reflect that I have enough unactioned phabricator tickets to pretty much reflect MEH! about an equitable cooperativeness, especially in the relationship and decision-making process of the developer-community to the content-community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like these issues could be addressed by linking to on so that people wondering about PAWS can learn more about it. As far as I can tell, that's the concern raised by billinghurst that is relevant to this proposal and it seems like it is easy to solve for. I've made a task. See phab:T221886 --EpochFail (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: PAWS' main page now redirects to mw:PAWS. Does this solve your concerns? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Please reread #Proposed additions and not just the six dot points, and my commentary and then you tell me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: sorry I didn't see this. Rereading through the criteria, I want to highlight that PAWS hosts code that can be run on-wiki, allowing it to be used for controlling bots. It was added as an OAuth application 3 years ago (Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/0a73e346a40b07262b6e36bdba01cba4) and (as for as I am aware) hasn't run into issues since. It is clearly relevant to wikimedia projects, and can be trusted not to encourage link spam etc. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Support, though paws: should link to is useless to link as other users will not be able to access the link anyway. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4 Thanks for the support, yes the proposal is to go to PAWS-public. Chico Venancio (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chicocvenancio: Have I said anything different? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. Chico Venancio (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Comment TLD is in the process of being disbanded. The links above use now as TLD, and if I followed threads correctly in cloud-l and Phabricator, ultimatelly they'll be If they keep redirecting I guess it's a minor issue though. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, updated the link up there. MarcoAurelio Chico Venancio (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)



Prefix: wikispore

For the Wikispore project on Wikimedia Cloud VPS, which launched after Wikimania 2019 in Stockholm - see Wikispore Main Page.--Pharos (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment Think a better link to the project information Wikispore. Anyway the site says "This is an experimental wiki, not a live Wikimedia Foundation project." I am not certain why we would be creating an interwiki to an experiment at this stage as I am not seeing that it meets the addition criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This project is indeed experimental in nature, but Wikispore is in substance a content project similar to Incubator, not a mere technical test. The aspiration is that it evolve into a production project eventually, but that depends on the ability to link to the developing specialized-content spores from existing WMF projects. The proviso wording is drawn from Wikitech:Cloud Services Terms of use and is in keeping with the scope we have been given from the Cloud Services team as a Wikimedian community-led project.--Pharos (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Support Wikispore is kind of a sister project in the making (or rather, a set of sister projects in the making). We don't really have addition criteria for sister projects, since sister project creation has been broken since forever (the exact problem Wikispore tries to solve). I would expect different criteria for them than for adding an unrelated external project, less focused on current utility and more focused on future potential (how to determine that potential, I'm not sure - maybe some measure of community support?). Expecting them to run on live Wikimedia Foundation infrastructure definitely would not be a reasonable condition, that's a surreally high bar. In the last decade or so, Wikidata was the only project that cleared it (and that was only possible because it happened to coincide with Google's commercial interests so they bankrolled it with a multimillion-dollar grant). Due to various technical and social problems with our current wiki creation process, we have to be very sure a project is going to be successful and popular before it can get green light (which stifles innovation, and again is part of the problem Wikispore tries to solve). --Tgr (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment If the project gains traction, it's definitely going to be worth adding the interwiki regardless of where it's hosted, as this will also make it much easier to update all the links in one place should the location change later (by changing the interwiki target). Bear in mind too that if it alternately just dies, it should also be quite easy to remove in that case, so for this it may be worth just adding the interwiki sooner rather than later in order to make linking easier. -— Isarra 21:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support interwiki link We do not have a consistent process for establishing interwiki links, so I make a judgement by weighing risk of harm versus potential to benefit. The biggest risk of harm that I see is overuse of interwiki link creation. I do not think every proposal should get an interwiki link, and proposals should start with some weight of development behind them. The Wikispore idea is new, but there are some supporters signed up on the project page and Pharos the coordinator has presented this concept in various places online and at Wikimania and WikiConference North America in 2019. The Wikispore concept is unusual and not likely to be repeated, because it is more of a meta-proposal for staging future Wikimedia projects and interwiki linking requests than it is the traditional concept of a Wikimedia Foundation sister project. And I agree - this is a project idea which we need, because although we have an incubator for Wikipedias, we do not have a staging area for other concepts. Setting up Wikispore would create a space for people to centralize their ideas and create pilot content, thus lowering the barriers to participation among anyone who wants to propose fundamentally new models of content curation. We are not short of ideas, but we are thin on process for growing them up. Interwiki links here add weight to connect users in any Wikimedia project to what it is, which is a sandbox for piloting new publishing models. With the recent mostly unchecked propagation of Wikibase instances, we need to advance discussion on how to manage new kinds of projects and this interwiki link would be part of that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Built by relevant and knowledgeable people, and looks more useful than a lot of existing links. I suspect that it will take time until this will be useful as links from the main namespace in Wikipedia, but it's not a reason not to add it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that sites hosted on the `` domain should not be considered stable/production. I support adding Wikispore to the interwiki links in principle but would like to see Wikispore move to a stable canonical domain first. harej (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but if it moved to a proper URI, it would be trivial to update this interwiki map, wouldn't it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It would be, you are right. My concern is more that WMFLabs is not meant to be a forever-home for content. Other than that I think it's acceptable. harej (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support and also support ​spore:​ as an alias. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support indeed. –SJ talk  04:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Particularly now that OAuth is working and people can use their wmf accounts. –SJ talk  23:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Very interesting project. Happy to see it promoted. Will contribute. Zblace (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think this is a small step in the right direction for an interesting project. As above, OAuth now working, interwiki links seem a next logical step. Battleofalma (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 100% -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Added to interwiki map. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: Thanks. Can you also add ​spore​? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Koavf, sure, added! Best, Vermont (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: Today, one of my favorite states became one of my favorite Wikimedians as well. :') —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dcljr: I definitely meant ​1916151805////////////////​. Sheesh. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Link:$1 prefix:xtools:

XTools is a popular suite of analytics tools. Global Search reports some 10,000 links scattered across the wikis, including in interface messages, with an additional 17,700+ links to the old location at (though there's no intention of updating those as they automatically forward to the new location). An interwiki link would simply shave off of some typing. Legacy links to XTools use URL query params (i.e. /ec?project=meta.wikimedia&user=Foo, but as of version 3.0 (released July 2017) it uses path-style parameters, such as /ec/meta.wikimedia/Foo, hence making it easy to link to with an interwiki link. This seems like a missing shortcut given we have similar other shortcuts like quarry: and petscan:. MusikAnimal talk 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support.MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I wonder if it would make more sense to link to specific features such as contribution counts. The main point of an interwiki is avoiding link rot and if you need to include part of the URL in the link that kind of defeats that. --Tgr (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Tgr: I'm fond of the idea, but it's impossible to link to it without including a project and a user. So for the Edit Counter you might have, which is the same number of characters as what's being proposed. Simply making xtools: go to the Edit Counter I don't think is a safe assumption since the suite includes many other tools. I'll also note that historically we've done very well with avoiding link rot. Links going back to the old toolserver with legacy parameters like ?wiki=Wikipedia&lang=fr still work today. At any rate, I have no strong feelings. Maybe this interwiki link doesn't make sense? MusikAnimal talk 00:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    If something takes two parameters, it's better suited for a template than an interwiki link. But then again, templates are not global... hm. And "link to the contributions of this user on this wiki" would make sense for an iw entry, but there's no easy way to manage that... --Tgr (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


Included in default interwiki map as shoutwiki:. ShoutWiki is a wiki farm hosting over 13,000 wikis, most licensed under CC BY-SA. Top 40 Wikipedias have over 500 links to them. Any wiki can be reached using link 01miki10 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


This is a closed wiki for Wikimedia Indonesia, currently used for internal matters. We would be grateful if the wiki have an assigned interwiki for better functionality. Thank you. Rachmat (WMID) (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment Linking to a fishbowl/private wiki? It isn't going to be widely used, and it is only effectively useful for a small group of people. It is significant number of pages and suitable to do such linking? Just seems weird to me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The private wiki currently has more than 42,000 files which most of them are linked from this wiki. Most of them are invoices and internal papers, saved in the private wiki to avoid abuse. When the files are moved, the bare link from here doesn't automatically redirect, so that is why we consider using assigned interwiki to avoid such problem. Also, having interwiki helps the syntax neat and tidy. Best, Rachmat (WMID) (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support This will help to detect whether files/related pages already existed (red link for non-existent ones), thus providing better way of knowing the completeness of important documents in the organization, without compromising the privacy. Raisha (WMID) (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Lingua Libre[edit]

Lingua Libre is a wiki supported by Wikimedia France that aims to record easily many audio pronunciations of words under CC by-sa or more permissive licence. Recordings can then be used by Wiktionary websites, lexicographical data on Wikidata or any other use.

Please note that the website just migrates from to so if you use LinkSummary, please test mainly Now, .fr redirects to .org and the website is not expected to move anymore (the .org was used before and WMFr bought the domain name in order to use the same TLD than other Wikimedia projects). Pamputt (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Support This is a Wikimedia community project, certainly we should facilitate linking to it.--Pharos (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Le Dico des Ados[edit]

Le Dico des Ados is a wiki supported by Wikimedia Switzerland that can be (and already is) used in education with children. It is a completely free of charge (and ad-free) online dictionary for (and also often by) children, under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The definitions are simple, with words that don't require further explanations and with adapted examples. In short, this is the Wiktionary's little brother (with whom we have an increasingly close relationship). The Dico is in the process of being linked on its mains page, as a cousin project, like Lingua Libre above (which pronunciations are used too). --DSwissK (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Support Supported by an important chapter, Le Dico des Ados has a lot of possible links with the Wiktionary projects. Pamputt (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Dashboard[edit]

Wiki Education Dashboard is the (non-wiki) site used by Wiki Education for course pages, primarily for classroom projects for editing English Wikipedia. It is one of two instances of this Dashboard web application, the other of which — — already has an interwiki prefix (`wmfdashboard`). Having an interwiki prefix would be especially helpful, because is an OAuth app that makes some automated edits on behalf of users to maintain pages like this one.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's "not a wiki" but this is a useful utility related to using WMF projects - so support. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sage (Wiki Ed). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site — it is a wiki on linguistic terminology in the broadest sense, by design, it is multilingual
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects — not on watch ;-)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) — CC-BY-SA 3.0
  4. be a wiki — runs on mediawiki, too
  5. have reasonable amounts of content — 3211 pages according to the stats page
  6. not contain malware — not on my watch

In addition to the above, "Glottopedia", the free encyclopedia of linguistics (multilingual) might be a useful interwiki, too. COI disclosure, i'm "owner" and editor over there. --Janwo (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2020 (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.


I don't understand why Uncyclopedia was added to this list. The text at the top says "Remember to specify why the prefix would be useful on a significant number of pages on Wikimedia Foundation projects", but I see no reason why anyone would need to link to a little-known humor wiki with no relevance to Wikimedia projects other than claiming to be a parody of Wikipedia. I notice this prefix was removed in 2009 after this discussion. It is also worth noting that there are two Uncyclopedias. The community forked in 2013, and a significant portion of it remained at, which today is the more active site and ranks higher in search results. (See wikipedia:Uncyclopedia, which links to both sites, and the number of active users listed on their statistics pages. Also note that the Wikipedia article does not use the interwiki.) I know the Wikia-hosted version can still be linked to by wikia:uncyclopedia:pagename, but having a dedicated prefix for either site and not the other seems like playing favorites.

I might also suggest that is not the kind of site Wikimedia projects would want to be associated with. It is highly male-dominated, as can be seen from their active admins page which lists several self-identified men but no self-identified women. One of those men wrote this misguided opinion piece about the #MeToo movement. They also have an associated IRC channel #uncyclopedia where some really vile things have been said including Holocaust denial. (Ctrl+F for "holocaust". The comment may have been a joke, but if so it's in bad taste. Bigotry is often framed as "jokes" to make it socially acceptable.) There's more I could say, but I don't think it would be appropriate here. I don't know if Wikimedia sites or the WMF care about the nature of the communities they give traffic to with interwiki links, but if they do, I hope they consider that this one conflicts with their principles. Ekips39 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Remove. It was removed per consensus, and I don't see in the archives any thread discussing and approving its readittion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Re-Support Support: Wiki is now closed/deleted. Interwiki link just do not work. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Uncyclopedia was added to match the addition to the MediaWiki default interwiki map. I don't think the previous removal discussion is that relevant, given the site forking from Wikia, etc. I don't really follow the line of argumentation about being "male-dominated" (not true, but have you looked at Wikimedia projects?) or IRC comments (have you ever been in #wikipedia-en?) and so on. It *is* a humor wiki. (disclaimer: I'm affiliated with Uncyclomedia Foundation). Legoktm (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    There's no reason for Uncyclopedia to be on the default interwiki map either. It has no relevance to any wiki other than those affiliated with it. Forking from Wikia does not make it not Uncyclopedia. As MarcoAurelio said, there was no thread approving its readdition; at least, I could not find one. I did find this rejected request.
    Of course I'm aware Wikimedia projects are male-dominated, but many members are aware and trying to work against it, and is far more so as evidenced by the link I gave and by who actively edits there. Yes, I am a #wikipedia-en regular. I find it to be a very civilized place where comments like the ones I linked never occur ("the holocaust is a lie made up by the liberal jewish media cabal", "banging my mum is endless enjoyment", "If you were my fucktoy you wouldn't be semen covered, you'd be semen filled", etc.). Behavior on #wikipedia-en is well regulated, and the channel has a set of guidelines, unlike #uncyclopedia which has no rules at all. Being a humor wiki does not excuse or explain the kind of conduct I have pointed to. But in any case, as I said, this site is not a useful interwiki link for Wikimedia or almost anything else. Ekips39 (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me get this straight... you want to remove a link to a group of about fifty wikis (as Uncyclopedia exists in multiple languages, across multiple communities) because someone said something you didn't like... not on the wiki, but on an IRC #channel? This looks to be a political ploy, not a legit attempt to apply established criteria. And yes, there was a discussion both when it was removed (as Wikia projects can already be accessed in a format like wikia:uncyclopedia:PageName) and when it was restored. Nothing has changed since then. K7L (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically. There's a bit of a history between Ekips and several other uncyclopedians, which in our proud tradition of drama, drama, everywhere, apparently spilled over here. I can't speak to the specific merits of any of it one way or the other, but this was not exactly an unbiased proposal. -— Isarra 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Legoktm: It's not a humor wiki, it's a rumors wiki, Please remove it from special:interwiki. -- 05:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a site focused on humor, not conspiracy theories or attacking people. Regardless, listing it in interwiki links isn't an endorsement of it's content. Vermont (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment The interwiki is used at enWP, and I believe that the issue should be discussed and resolved there. In the current situation I am not prepared to remove the interwiki and leave redlinks without consulting and having advice from the wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • General note that even aside from the bias of the original proposal, much of it is apt to no longer apply regardless: wikia is in the process of deleting all the uncyclopedias they host, so the wikia interwikis will soon no longer work for any of them. Thus while there may still be some different variants of some of the languages, nearly all of the projects will now require a distinct interwiki to access them this way regardless. -— Isarra 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


This website is down, and according to phab:T115790, has been repeatedly over the last several years (depending on how you interpret the last few comments in that bug report, it may have been down continuously for over two years by this point). It is only used a few hundred times, and only around 5 of those are articles, plus a couple dozen or so translation subpages here on MetaWiki (though I counted just by scanning the list, so I may have missed some). ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what happened to the content which used to be on botwiki: as that project's been offline for a couple of years now, breaking the interwiki link. Did the info get moved to mw: or is it simply lost? K7L (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I note there's been no answer from @Snowolf: yet (though by all accounts she's busy IRL, so someone should probably make a more concerted effort to get a hold of her?), and the site's still down. ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 21:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    I emailed him a couple of months ago regarding this but I've not no reply from him though. If the wiki has been down for some time I'd say we remove the link. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the lengthy delay in replying here. Botwiki has indeed been out of commission for several years. I shut down that hosting account a long time ago now, and never brought Botwiki back up. The entire database for it is overrun with the unwiedly amount of spam we had been experiencing, and I intended on cleaning stuff up before bringing it back. For a project with only a few hundred pages and only a handful of active or semi-active it was unmanageable to have many hundreds of new spam accounts per day. So between that and the fact that it was running on an ancient MediaWiki version, it always ended up pushed towards the bottom of the todo list -- I'm sorry. I am currently in a very busy period IRL, but I can explore bringing it up in May or June if there is need for me to do so. Alternatively, I could look at producing a dump of some kind. I'm open to any avenue that would be preferred (and I'm really bad at answering, I know -- I'm sorry MarcoAurelio). Snowolf How can I help? 18:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Keeping in mind I have no personal use for it myself, nor any history with it, I would say at this point that a dump would be fine given the site's been offline for several years and you don't have the free time to bring it back up and maintain it (I've poked around a bit at your user pages here and on Wikipedia, and it sounds like you've been short on personal time for years now, so I'm guessing this is a situation that also isn't likely to change for you any time soon). A dump would also allow someone else to run the site, if there was a desire for that at this point (if nothing else, if the contents of the wiki are of any importance to the WMF, they could toss it up as a read-only wiki similar to Nostalgia). ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 18:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
      Read-only on 1.7.x should be very easy to do. Actually I guess could just disallow new account creations and that would do the trick -- I doubt the spambots would still keep track of their old passwords. I'll look into this maybe sometime in the next week and report back. Snowolf How can I help? 19:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
      Sorry that should have been 1.17.x, not 1.7.x Snowolf How can I help? 19:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment We can look to mark this as discontinued (Interwiki map/discontinued) so replacing with a local static link. If the bot is ever resurrected then we can relink to the new site. In light of the history of the bot, what are people's thoughts?  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Support. I'd also support total removal considering the site is down and there ain't plans to reactivate it. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the new place is mw:Pywikibot already for the most of its content.  @xqt 12:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


The links are broken - works, but clicking forward to returns a forbidden access error / 403. All links, like, return a Not Found / 404 error.

The primary usage is in w:Template:WP1.0, and the template can be updated.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold @DannyS712: It has a lot of links at enWP in Talk: and some specialised categories, should it be a case of remapping all links to a single target page and listing on Interwiki map/discontinued.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Service: fixed ping to DannyS712MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Most of the lines are from the template - if this is going to be moving forward (either removal or remapping) I'll remove the template link - that should clear the majority of links. Should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


This quest began at w:Template talk:IMDb name#Links to IMDb name in main text which look exactly like Wikipedia bluelinks; and I was pointed here, to a level of the dungeon of which I was unaware.

w:IMDb is not w:WP:RS. See w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a summary and w:WP:CITINGIMDB for more detail.

imdbname creates links in Wikipedia mainspace which look exactly like Wikipedia bluelinks. For an example, see the first two words (Ari Gold, the title) in this diff. IMO this is a dreadful situation.

If imdbname is deleted, as I believe it should be, the 350-odd uses of it should also be removed. This should extend to removing the enclosing square brackets. In my example, removing imdbname:0324923| but not [[]] would leave [[Ari Gold]], a circular, non-functional, but doubly-bolded, link.

Links inside braces {{}} should not be touched. w:Template:IMDb name is useful when used properly. Narky Blert (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This should be addressed by an edit filter instead of removing the prefix altogether, which will have a significant impact on all wikis where existing links will stop working. We have many non-RS prefixes such as Wikia. Nardog (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per @Nardog:. While English Wikipedia may not consider IMDb a reliable source in some contexts, we have many other Wikimedia projects which use this interwiki prefix. Moreover, I think any issues with IMDb being used for questionable source additions on English Wikipedia (and other Wikipedias potentially as well), as Nardog pointed out, this could be better addressed with an improved edit filter/abuse filter. Alternatively, perhaps English Wikipedia could explore the possibility of allowing a local interwiki table, to be edited, potentially, by its local administrators or some other user group, with the local interwiki table additions set to override the global interwiki table. Or, alternatively, it could simply opt out of the regular updating of its interwiki table, and have its interwiki table controlled locally by its own users. Dmehus (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


The BrickWiki prefix seems to refuse connections. Most links seem to be from talk page --Nintendofan885 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2020 (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.


​[[Quarry:$1]]​ maps to ​$1​, should map to ​$1​. For backwards compatibility, the "​query/​" prefix should be removed by the parser. Fuzzy (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done special:diff/19815991  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations. Now every existing link to quarry is broken: (or any number) 404s. w:WP:RAQ for some handy examples. —User:Cryptic (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, you can no longer link to user pages on quarry, e.g. quarry:Retro used to go to the perfectly-valid (as seen at w:User:Retro). for the links from enwiki, none of which now work, and there's a bunch of immutable edit summaries besides. —User:Cryptic (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
eraser Undone. @Cryptic: this has been undone for now. @Fuzzy: do you have more information on your request and how to avoid problems? — xaosflux Talk 15:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not Fuzzy, but the problem they seem to be trying to solve is that the overwhelming majority of links to quarry do go to query/ subpages, so it's natural to want [[quarry:1]] to work. (Indeed, there's three links on enwiki that tried to do exactly this, all predating the interwiki map change.) It's worth asking the quarry maintainer to redirect e.g. to go to on that side of things, though that's of course a breaking change for users with all-numeric usernames. —User:Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
How about second interwiki, e.g. [[query:123]]? --Dvorapa (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If people do want this, I think the easiest way forward is to get Quarry to support the broken-looking /query/query/1 URLs and redirect them to the proper destination. And then we can safely change the interwiki target. Legoktm (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


It looks like PlanetMath changed the way their URLs are generated and now the interwiki links are broken. For example, in the external links section on the Sigma-Algebra page there is an interwiki link ​[[PlanetMath:950|Sigma Algebra]]​ which goes to the URL ​​. But the URL should actually be ​​. 12:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold at this time. They have complete reworked their navigation and ditched their old schema, so changing the redirect target won't fix anything. It will just give the ability to start again. Please advise what should be done. Alternatively, we can look to remove the links, see  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Update Wikia domains[edit]

Wikia has changed its domain to the following prefixes need updating: (Note: The prefixes with w:c don't work with just so I've changed them to so they works)

Prefix Old domain New domain

--Nintendofan885 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Change WMFblog to point to Diff[edit]

Currently the WMFblog prefix links to$1. This should be changed to$1 because pages on the former url redirect to the later url per task T254367 --Nintendofan885 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Update OTRS link[edit]

From what I can see the AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=$1 prefix of the OTRS: link leads OTRS agents to a broken link as the ticketID is an internal ID for OTRS itself, separate from the ticket number. Could somebody change the link to AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=$1 similarly to the Ticket: inter-wiki link? Kb03 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been a long time I am no longer an OTRS agent/admin, but I remember "otrs" was to be used with another number not being the ticket Ticket #NNNN number. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's intentional the one links to the ticket ID and the other to the ticket number, which are different. Please don't change that without checking how otrs: is used. --Krd 16:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Krd: I found Special:Redirect/logid/20646459 which uses otrs:9788863 and is the TicketID.Is that still working? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
That link to work. I suggest to keep this as it is. --Krd 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
If it still works, I also suggest to keep them as is too. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


BattlestarWiki:$1 currently links to$1. This should be changed to$1 as BattlestarWiki:Example links to the article 'Wiki/Example' which is broken. This also improves security by using https --Nintendofan885 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


For the gutenberg prefix, please consider changing http:// to https:// instead in the prefix's target URL. This page on Project Gutenberg indicates that HTTPS is supported when linking to specific ebooks. Using HTTPS would provide increased privacy and security for users.

Example link: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2020 (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).

toollabs / toolforge[edit]

Currently the toollabs: prefix refers to$1. Per wikitech:News/ this is no longer supported for any tools created after June 15. We may need a new service to keep the redirect behavior.--GZWDer (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The new service is wikitech:Tool:iw, though I'm not sure if it's ready to be switched yet. In any case, the domain is expected to continue working indefinitely. Legoktm (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up GZWDer. The Toolforge admin team has considered this as part of the domain migration. We have been using phab:T247432 as our place to discuss the options and timelines for taking action. As Legoktm pointed out there is a tool that I have written to act as an intermediate redirect service. This is maybe not the most elegant way to solve the problem, but I think it will work until it is proven to have some shortcoming that requires a more complex technical solution. The "hard" deadline for folks to migrate to using the new URL scheme was 2020-06-30, but we have not done the final steps yet to redirect all of the tools. I expect that work to start in the week of 2020-07-06. One of the steps that will happen is rolling out new configuration for the interwiki links pointing to the IW tool. Until that is done the current link scheme will continue to work, even for new tools. And, just to be clear, the legacy URLs will be preserved via a separate redirection service indefinitely. We are still supporting URLs using a redirector, and will be treated similarly. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Update for the mappings requested at Special:Diff/20257049 --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Updated at Special:Diff/20257158. Sgd. —Hasley 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


The addition of "spore" to the table (by this edit) caused a "badtitle" error for one article on the English Wikipedia. w:Spore:_Galactic_Adventures is an article about a video game, but it now has a bad title because of the conflict with the interwiki prefix. It can be read by accessing it through the redirect w:Spore Galactic Adventures, but it cannot be moved or edited. There are also six redirects on English Wikipedia that start with the string "Spore: " (see [3]). It seems to me that the solution would be (1) temporarily remove "spore" from the interwiki table, (2) move the one affected article over the existing redirect, (3) delete the other six affected redirects, and (4) restore "spore" to the table. Note that I have no practical way of checking whether this issue affects pages on any other sister project, except that the Wikidata item for "Spore: Galactic Adventures" indicates similar title problems exist for this particular article on fr:, pt:, ru: and uk: Wikipedias. --R'n'B (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing the spore: interwiki permanently. Using toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php shows it's currently only used as an interwiki link 3 times, compared with over 300 links to the video games. wikispore: exists for the same site and appears to be its actual name. the wub "?!" 10:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@The wub: I'm inclined to agree with removing it, but what are those 3 uses? for me iw.php turned up hundreds of links, and I cannot tell which ones are intentional and which aren't --DannyS712 (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The ones I saw were on incubator:Project:Community Portal, and 2 uses on m:User talk:Sj. the wub "?!" 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've fixed the uses on those two pages. Symbol wait.svg Removing --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed Removed - Special:Diff/20219835 --DannyS712 (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action, DannyS712 the wub "?!" 10:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that, while I removed it here, it won't be removed from the actual config until the config is updated. This was also reported at phab:T257076 and the fix should be deployed early next week --DannyS712 (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fix deployed by Reedy, should be good now --DannyS712 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Interwiki map/detailed table[edit]

Hi. I created the page Interwiki map/detailed table, and the code I used to generate it is here. If you any glaring errors or omissions, tell me and I'll try to fix them. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki prefixes that conflict with language codes[edit]

The header on interwiki map rightly suggests that prefixes "should avoid likely conflict with languages". However, some prefixes do conflict with ISO 639-3 codes. The following is a table of all conflicts I was able to find.

Prefix Prefix usages Language Speakers (estimate) Location Notes
aew 24 Ambakich 770 Papua New Guinea
blw 1 Balangao 21,000 Philippines
dcc 15 Dakhini 11,000,000 India Dialect of Urdu?
doi 77,892 Dogri 2,600,000 India Dogri has an open request for a Wikipedia. However, doi is a macrolanguage code. The individual codes are dgo (Dogri proper), xnr (Kangri). Crisis averted, probably.
git 892 Gitxsan 1,020 Canada
guc 19 Wayuu 320,000 Venezuela, Colombia Verified as eligible by LangCom (request for Wikipedia, request for Wiktionary). Has ~500 articles in its test Wikipedia and ~100 pages in its test Wiktionary on Incubator.
zum 263 Kumzari 2,300 Oman

(There are other three-letter codes on the interwiki map that are not assigned as ISO 639 codes currently, but could potentially be assigned in the future. If I missed anything in the above table, ping me.)

The only actionable proposal I think I can immediately make is the removal of "guc". First of all, Wayuu has by far the highest chance of being approved by LangCom in the near future. Secondly, the global user contributions tool already has an interwiki prefix, "luxo", so there's not much need for "guc". Finally, the "guc" prefix only has a relatively small number of usages and was only added in February so it should be easy to completely replace before it becomes a larger problem.

By the way, I've modified my iwconflict.php tool to report conflicts with language codes. This should reduce the chance that the list of collisions will continue to grow. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment luxo is so 2012, and nobody would think to use it or understand it. If we need guc, then we put in a reasonable alternative, and do the replacement, then delete the existing guc, and hopefully have enough space prior to any new implementation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
We could also consider whether we put in html remarks to placehold any reserved codes that could be expected to be used.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
On behalf of LangCom, thank you.
The only one of those language codes that has a page on Incubator besides guc is doi, and that page basically redirects people to the separate language codes within the macrolanguage. And the request for Dogri on Meta has been recoded to one of the separate language codes. So I think guc is the only one remotely problematic now. Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on this issue, and ping me if there's a question.
I suppose I should point out for the record that if Wawa ever actually gets a project—highly unlikely—we're not going to use its ISO 639-3 code, because that's "www". Imagine the chaos! So we'd probably end up using the code assigned in the otherwise withdrawn ISO 639-6 standard, which is "wxwa". So if anyone asks to use "wxwa" as an interwiki prefix—highly unlikely—try to get them to go elsewhere. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment blw has been removed (see #Barely used legacy stuff above). ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 21:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Let's get rid of guc already, please. I removed all occurrences of it except 2 MediaWiki pages on plwiki, where I'm waiting for an admin to do it. As an alternative to luxo, we can add globalcontribs or so. --MF-W 12:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed on plwiki. tufor (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Changed guc to globalcontribs. --MF-W 01:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata property[edit]

There is now . It isn't complete yet. Jura1 (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructions to Meta-Wiki administrators[edit]


Update logs[edit]

Due to limited search functionality, you will need to check both log searches.

Current map in the configuration[edit]

  • You can check here the current map as existing on the Wikimedia configuration files.