Talk:Interwiki map

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

Proposed additions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Located here:

WikiPrefix: glyphwiki


kanji (hanzi, hanja) glyph database system--Shizhao (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this addition, excellent one especially for Wiktionaries.
  1. What they provide would complement entries about characters at Wiktionaries. They have many glyphs that are not standard (thus cannot be written as text on Wiktionaries) but used. They link between related characters, alternative glyphs, relation among radicals, etc.
  2. The wiki already has 290,000 entries as it claims.
  3. There is a vibrant community to improve the information and expand the coverage of glyphs of kanji/hanzi/hanja and other characters, as you can see in its RC.
  4. Their contents are free (but not copyleft); their license allows modification, redistribution and commercial use.
They have two (synchronized) versions,* in Japanese and* in English. I suggest prefixes jaglyphwiki for the former and englyphwiki for the latter in order to minimize confusion. --whym (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Do you want glyphwiki as an alias for jaglyphwiki, Whym, Shizhao? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


This wiki had the uncyclopedia: prefix, which was removed when Wikia moved the project from to over the community's objections a few years ago. Uncyclopedia moved to a non-Wikia server on Jan 5, 2013; it is not possible to reach their new wiki (or any of a long list of Uncyclopedia languages on non-Wikia sites) using the wikia: prefix and there are still quite a few user pages with broken links to this wiki. 08:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be two Uncyclopedias: wikia:uncyclopedia and Do we favour one over the other? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please reply. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Prefix: uncyclopedia:

 Not done Users are not going to know which to use to link to which site. Too confusing, please use full urls. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Those seems to be used by non-english version of uncyclopedia that shouldn't be problem if it is just linking to english uncyclopedia...C933103 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)




Hey there I'm from Zh-Wikipedia. It has been a routine for me to use the "namespace" of google:. But you know, in Chinese, Google can't be everything. Baidu is a Chinese search engine which can provide more reliable search results in Chinese. So would any admin please add a baidu: link to the current interwiki list? It's an urge need. Besides,due to the Internet censorship in China, many of ZhWP users can't access google successfully. Please consider adding that link.Super Wang (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold: someone needs to check the conclusion of the past discussion (if there was one) about adding non-wiki URLs contrary to the current, now-stricter requirements of #Proposed additions. --Nemo 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be done. Grandfathering considerations aside, to have Google and to not add Baidu is silly. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't have other search engines (e.g., yahoo, bing,, duckduckgo) either. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Not done linking to a search engine is truly not good linking for encyclopaedias. It probably wasn't right to do Google, however, that is not a knot that I wish to unpick. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any objective criteria for deciding which search engines to add, and which not to? Is Google just there for historical reasons? Leucosticte (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, it sounds like consensus-can-change may have already occurred, and the google-grandfathering should be eliminated as a mistake. Is there a scan we can do, to see how the current google-prefix-namespace-thing is being used... and how *many* of them there are? I'd never heard of it until today, but at first glance it seems like programmatic replacement with the equivalent URL would not impair anything. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part? 17:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the count-tool.[1] See also these detailed instructions for rolling your own queries.[2] There are over 6000 uses of google:$1 on enWiki alone (plus another 9k on other wikis), albeit only a few of those 6k are in mainspace, and then usually just google:$pageTitle in the external links section. Interestingly, 4k of those enWiki hits are on subpages of w:User:Rybec alone, but there *are* at least 100 other people that made use of the shorthand for one reason or another (most of them just a handful of times though). Other major uses: there are about 750 in w:Project:Most_missed_articles, about 400 in AfD (usually simply the pagename but sometimes customized e.g. google:"Alexander+Ferocia"+-myspace was one I noticed), about 50 in AfC, about 30 in Category, and and a bunch of miscellaneous. Some that seemed useful were:
  1. specialized uses: google:2*pi*(6600^3/398600)^.5/60 in w:Template talk:Earth_orbits,
  2. google:link: in w:Backlink, and
  3. in w:Talk:Recreation.
  4. There were several translation-and-sourcing examples on article-talkpages, plus a few w:WP:COMMONNAME disputes with w:WP:GOOG as a tool. google:一卡通 in w:Talk:Yikatong,
  5. google:عباس+العقاد in w:Talk:Abbas_el-Akkad,
  6. google:Šta+je+pisac+hteo+da+kaže in w:Talk:Bosnian_language/Archive_3,
  7. google:нуржиц in w:Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching, and
  8. google:"Baekdu_Mountain"_OR_"Baekdusan"_OR_"Paekdu_Mountain"_OR_"Paekdusan"_OR_"Paektu_Mountain"_OR_"Paektusan"_-Wikipedia_-"Changbai_Mountains" in w:Talk:Paektu_Mountain.
  9. Sourcing: google:dotriacontagon for w:Talk:Cross-polytope,
  10. google:iOS7+copy+android for w:Talk:IOS_7, and
  11. google:Journal_of_Biosocial_Science_Gregory_Cochran for w:Talk:Gregory_Cochran.
  12. Other pretty worthwhile usages: google:Wikipedia_unblock in w:Template talk:Unblock,
  13. google:"This+user+is+a+suspected+sock+puppet+of+Willy+on+Wheels" in Project talk:Deny_recognition/Archives/2006/09,
  14. google:"Wikipedia_cultist" in w:Project:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great,
  15. google:Randy_in_Boise in w:Project talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Archive_2.
But quite a lot of the uses I noticed seemed kinda useless and/or autogenerated: google:AcademyAwardBestDocumentaryFeature+footer in w:Template:AcademyAwardBestDocumentaryFeature_footer for example. Rybec's 4300 must be for something, obviously, though I'm not sure that the specialized "interwiki" prefix is helpful enough to make the problem a gordian knot. There *is* plenty of other usage, outside enWiki, however. We're talking about hundreds of people that have, at one time anyways, used this prefix-namespace-thingie.
  Furthermore, besides the straightforward google: for searching, there is also cache: for saved copies (contrast with / / however which are permanent... goog wipes after 30 days), scholar: for academic cite-searches, googlegroups for dejanews fka usenet (not usually reliable sources... but sometimes used as primary sources... and on wiktionary used for attestation), as well as googledefine: which again is prolly more useful to wiktionary folks than to the other WMF projects. Missing is google translate and also google books and also perhaps google maps (although WikiMiniAtlas seems like a win to me for that purpose). Anyways, my initial thought that maybe this would be easy to deprecate, turns out to be wrong... there are quite a few things that use such prefixes.
  But methinks we either need to deprecate the official google-prefixes, or add some other engines. Maybe we can have a search: prefix and a translate: prefix, and the target search-engine and/or translation-engine is picked based on the user's browser configuration settings? Methinks it is possible to google:use javascript to detect what the default search engine is for every user, on the fly. There are bugs in the current system, though, which may mean we should nix search-engine-prefix entirely. Talk:Interwiki_map#google has the rawurlencode details. 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
All the google: links in Rybec's userspace are on one page, "User:Rybec/failed-requests-list". That makes up for a good chunk of the total number of links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was invited to comment by The instances in w:en:Wikipedia:Most missed articles and my pages such as w:en:User:Rybec/failed-requests-mn arise from the templates w:en:User:Melancholie/mmA and w:en:User:Rybec/tstats. If the google: function is removed, the templates can be edited and all will be well with those pages, unless/until Google changes its URL format (e.g. if or whatever it is were changed to then each page would have to be updated, whereas now it can presumably be updated in a single place). I'm not actually using the google: links: I have difficulty using Google, so I added a different search engine to my copy of the template.

w:en:Wikipedia:Most missed articles is a list of requests for non-existent article titles. It's used as a source of ideas for creating articles or redirects. In the process of doing so, people have occasion to use a search engine. Rybec (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[edit] 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No reason given. Declined until further information is provided. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this might have been a bit harsh. I'd be willing to add this if you convince me that it is useful to the Wikimedia projects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)



It's a Wikimedia wiki. Used by "SUL2" for central logins. It might not be overly useful, but I see no reason to make people write the URL instead. It is also a useful link for stewards to CU. Either login: or loginwiki: is fine. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There only seems to be one page on the wiki. Do you often need to link to the project? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 Not done No need for this to be used, there will never be edits, and stewards have no specific need to link to users at this wiki — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


link: proposed prefix: beacha

Although the site itself seems fine, it does not seem to be linked to much: w:Special:LinkSearch/* Is there a need for a special interwiki prefix for this wiki? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is this an issue? Interwikis are about facilitating links between wikis, and there are many kinds of wikis out there. English Wikipedia has no real need to link to this site, as it would contravene their external linking policies. However, other wikis may like to link to Beachapedia using an interwiki prefix. This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Done. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Danish MediaWiki installations[edit]

The following discussion is closed: not done, no demonstrated need, nor consensus for the group additions

Here is a list of Danish mediawikis that I proudly propose. The content in all of them is historical information and making interwiki-links will make it easier collaborate with wikimedias, which might be usefull. See Danish village pump for a short review by the chairman of Wikimedia Denmark.

These sites may qualify, by having significant number of pages, being wikis with free content and being not known to contain malware. The easiest way of linking would be by using the town name as prefix. --Ribewiki (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. If nobody else comments in a week, I will add these. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please wait, there's no concensus on da and there's multiple issues with the wikis that needs to be adressed first. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to add, according to copyrigt issues. Danish legislation states that historical content freely accessible in national archives may freely be distributed even under public domain rights. The discussion in danish wikipedia has not been very specific about graphics copyrigt on these wikis and seems to be no problem. --Ribewiki (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment Comment I am concerned with a hint of CoI in the original request, and that adds to my feelings of the need for a consensus at the wikis, so I agree with the indication that we should let the daWXs reach a decision on whether there is a consensus on the use of the wikis as legitimate references before we consider them for a global interwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like no Danish non-WMF wikis has even been added to the list, so something needs to be done, the sooner the better. Is there any consensus about removing broken URLs from the list? Nothing seems to happen in that concern! --Ribewiki (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Knud Winckelmann: update? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems there is no consensus within the Danish community to add these. Shall we close this, or add the least objectionable few? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Support When baden: has been added with only 230 content pages, I see no reason why not also adding all these Danish wikis. Its very much the same type of wiki and lots of local editors can take advantage. --Ribewiki (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that several of the projects have problems. For example, on the Danish page, User:Palnatoke noted that all activity to one of the wikis after 10 May has been spam. I note that this no longer is the case: there were four edits on 8 December which are better described as test edits instead of spam. A user created four pages containing the word "test" and nothing else. Also, the edits on 10 May mostly appear to have been useless creations of empty categories. Unless the projects have useful content which we may want to link to, I don't think that there is any point in having interwiki prefixes for the wikis. These should not be added in a group, but instead be individually evaluated based on their merits. Many of them do not seem to be useful for Wikimedia projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Comment Looks like you have surveyed the mentioned on the Danish page. I agree with User:Palnatoke, that it's not worthy for interwiki, and thats why I actually never proposed it here. Let's only take the good ones. --Ribewiki (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Which wikis are the "good ones"? Does anyone else think these should be added? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody except Ribewiki seems to want these additions. --Palnatoke (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree, Palnatoke, and I probably won't vote for you on next years general assembly. Remember this interwiki-proposal started because of discontent by holding every Mediawiki Denmark general assembly in the swedish border town Copenhagen. I'm trying to represent the widespread attitude of the western parts of our language area including north atlantic parts. You just won't face criticism. --Ribewiki (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ribe Wiki

prefix="ribe" url="$1" contains 2.014 content pages (19.259 total)

I have modified the Ribewiki:About-page for clarification about licensing. --Ribewiki (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This means that out of six pages, only two aren't mirrors of other pages. Also, the mirroring pages seem to be completely unrelated to the city of Ribe, although that city appears to be the purpose of the wiki. The two local pages are about things within 50 km from Ribe. Looking at Speciel:Seneste ændringer, I see lots of further mirroring of websites in the same way. Also, is this wiki really a collective work? Apart from this IP edit, all edits at Special:RecentChanges during the latest week seem to have been made by you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Comment Truly Ribewiki has only few contributers yet. Can't tell how many, because it's open editable (and uses the very effective Key Captcha-filter against spam). Interwiki linking is believed to encourage collaborate work for all kind of wikis, and not only being advantageous for Wikimedia-sites. --Ribewiki (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 Not done no clear need demonstrated from the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Support Don't misinterpretate what a club of 19 members in Copenhagen may think Wikimedia is like. --Ribewiki (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Who are the members of this "club of 19 members in Copenhagen"? Only 8 people have edited da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Kulturgeografi og wiki-links (plus three anonymous edits from three different IP addresses), and several of the participants in that discussion do not live in Copenhagen according to their user pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Aarhus Wiki

prefix="aarhus" url="$1" 1.464 content pages

Helsingør Leksikon

prefix="helsingor" url="$1" 1.039 content pages

Horsens Leksikon

prefix="horsens" url="$1" 1.800 content pages

Kolding Wiki

prefix="kolding" url="$1" 769 content pages

Odsherred Wiki

prefix="odsherred" url="$1" 4.859 content pages

Ringsted Wiki

prefix="ringsted" url="$1" 210 content pages (nice)

Skanderborg Leksikon

prefix="skanderborg" url="$1" 438 content pages

Vejle Wiki

prefix="vejle" url="$1" 661 content pages

Wiki Silkeborg

prefix="silkeborg" url="$1" 1.250 content pages

Closed Closed There is not a consensus for these addition, just continued argument by one person who has an apparent vested interest. If the daWX have a need, they should present a case by case proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Prefix: wikiapiary Link: WikiApiary About Statistics WikiIndex

WikiApiary collects, graphs and analyzes information about MediaWiki websites. It has articles on over 9,000 MediaWiki wikis and 3,000 MediaWiki extensions. A lot of the WikiApiary users are active in the MediaWiki development community. WikiApiary is linked from thousands of extension pages at due to transclusions from mw:Template:Extension, and it should be linked from the Wikipedia articles about the various notable MediaWiki installations (see List of wikis) because it has a lot of useful data about those sites. Many of the same arguments for having WikiIndex in the map apply to WikiApiary, although the sites have some important differences. Leucosticte (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable and meets all the criteria. I'll add this in a few days if nobody objects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@Leucosticte: Added Added [3]. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Prefix: gentoo Link: //$1

Currently in the interwiki list, there is 'gentoo-wiki', the old Gentoo community Wiki which has been down for the last year. The Gentoo project has since launched its own (official if you will) Wiki. It doesn't have the same contents, so probably warrants a new prefix. I'll file a separate removal request for the abandoned community site. —A3li (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Added Added. @Billinghurst: to show they are separate wikis, compare archive to this. There is a fatal licensing flaw that prevents importing old Gentoo pages onto the new Gentoo wiki: the old one's content is non-free (CC BY-NC-SA). PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Esolang wiki[edit]

Prefix: esolang, Link:$1, Links from "top 40" Wikipedias: [4].

This wiki is used a lot more than many other interwikis are, so I think it can be added. Content is under CC0 (Public Domain Dedication). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: thoughts? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, a good solid active wiki with lots of links from WMF sites. I think this kind of proactive addition to the interwiki map is a great idea :) This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Prefix: proofwiki, Link: //$1, Links from "top 40" Wikipedias: [5]

This wiki is used a lot more than many other interwikis are, so I think it can be added. Content is under CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: thoughts? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is also a good solid active wiki, so yes, I think it should be added as well. This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Proposed prefix: tfwiki, link:$1

TFWiki is a well-established wiki which has been at its current URL for over five years. At over 18 thousand articles, it's also the largest and most-reliable Transformers wiki. Content is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and regularly maintained by a large community (of which I am a part). --Alden Bates (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It has a lot on links (at least on enwiki), is under a free license, and seems otherwise fine. I will add this in a few days if nobody objects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PiRSquared17! --Alden Bates (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Most surprised (and somewhat disappointed) that in welcoming the newest member of the Wikimedia club we included a prefix for Wikidata (d:) but we don't seem to have one for WikiVoyage (largely because WikiVersity now occupies v:). Therefore, I propose wv:, vy: or just voyage: until we get a developer to talk about this, because the other wikis have dedicated interwikis that are not in the table, e.g. wikt:, that seem to be the result of developer work. I did a brief check on Google to see if wv: and vy: had ISO langcodes but I could find none, but if someone double checks my work and finds some ISO codes we could fall back on voyage: plus if an ISO code were to be issued later in the future we could always remove wv: and vy: from the interwiki map. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

voy: exists. Savhñ 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok, but that's still not completely obvious to me, so these could remain as aliases in the interwiki table for awhile. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Might want to check back through the history (Nov-Dec 2012?) as voy: appears to have been chosen on the assumption that wv: could be mistaken for Wikiversity. K7L (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: please use Special:Interwiki for your reference not the obverse of this page, that lot is just additions, not what is core for WMF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 Not done, duplication hasn't been the practice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and your consideration. I had not known that special page existed and will use it in the future. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Komica wiki[edit]

link:$1 prefix:KomicaWiki:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top20wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):GPL License
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:list of pages:
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add this if nobody objects within a few days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@C993103: Yes check.svg Done (diff). PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I have removed it as I think it needs wider review, after checking zh:Komica seems to be quite controversial. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't speak this language, and machine translation from Chinese to English is a hopeless pursuit (what does this mean: 有許多內容是事實和惡搞參雜,亦記有島民常用語、成句、Komica上的名人和歴史事件。 = "There are many facts and spoof content is mixed, also remember there Islander common language, a sentence, celebrities and Historical events Komica on." Is this calling into question the veracity of the site's contents? I couldn't say for sure...)
In addition, it's not widely linked to (only 61 links from zhwiki and 3 from enwiki). This, that and the other (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Spoof content are striked in article there and i don't think it is a factor to be consider when the above discussion about addition of uncyclopedia to the interwikimap does not touch this point...and is tens of links from wikipedia alone not enough?C933103 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Shizhao, Bencmq: is this ok? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know too much about the site. A quick browsing shows nothing very objectionable, so content seems fine. Re: that sentence, yes it roughly means "some contents are mixture of facts and parody", but I can't really verify that.--Bencmq (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Re-Added Added. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


link: http://www$$2 prefix:atwiki: or @wiki:

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

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

Sure, I'll add this if nobody objects within a few days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this needs wider review. @This, that and the other: please check these? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
An interwiki prefix isn't going to work for this site, because the domains are of the form, where X is some number (e.g. I tried in the hope it would redirect to the correct subdomain, but as you can see, it doesn't work. People will have to continue to use URLs for this site. This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about a script that would redirect $1:$2 to http://www$$2? It it worth the effort? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

MBA Library[edit]

link:$1 prefix:mba:

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

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

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


link:$1 prefix:freesoft:

Alive and kicking, about 170 links from w:en:, existing Interwiki templates could be used for their pages: example link. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I will add if nobody objects in a few days (and I don't forget). Ping me if I don't reply by Saturday. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: Done, thanks also for your comment below. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Works already, I tested it on w:Freeware ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

c: for Commons[edit]

Should c: be added to the interwiki map for Wikimedia Commons? A request for comments has been opened, following a 2011 RfC on the same topic which, while positive, did not see wide participation. — Scott talk 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See also bugzilla:4676. I submitted a patch like the one for d: and m: rather than editing IWM directly, which has been added and reverted before. If you believe IWM is more appropriate than editing the operations files directly, the patch can and should be abandoned. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17:It's about time we got this over and done with, I think. Let's just add "c:" to the interwiki map and wait for it to be updated on the server. I've been trying to get Reedy's attention on this and other interwiki matters, but I have been met with silence so far. This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done but if this breaks everything don't blame me. :P PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sweet. Seeing c:User:Scott turn blue is going to be very rewarding after all the work that led up to it. — Scott talk 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


link prefix:orain

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

I don't really see why, it doesn't seem like it so far contains any content of interest. --MF-W 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at requirements:
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects No (and this one is very important)
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects Yes (won't be spammed)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) Yes (CC BY-SA 3.0 by default [6])
  4. be a wiki Yes obviously
  5. have reasonable amounts of content No (AFAICS)
  6. not contain malware Yes obviously
PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't say anything for 1 really but in regards to 5, since it is a wiki farm - the wikis in it count as content points. One to see is this wiki. A few others exist but probably not contributing anything to Wikimedia per se John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, that wiki seems to just be a MediaWiki fork of, which already has an interwiki prefix (tvtropes:). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Deja News[edit]

I'm surprised that there's still a link to Deja News; Google took over Deja aaages ago. And surely this link (even if it works anymore, and even if there are any instances of it on Wikipedia) merely duplicates the Google Groups link? -- 11:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked to toolserver database (which contains no private wikis) for finding existing links:
eswikinews: 1 link n:es:Help:Cómo se edita un artículo
eswiki: 1 link w:es:Help:Cómo se edita una página
Merlissimo 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can it be translated somehow to a Google Groups link? is it worth it? --Nemo 18:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The only place it is used is in a list of interwikis. I have no idea whether Deja News URLs can be translated to Google News ones. Although it is not currently harmful, I think we should remove it. It has no use now. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I couldn't find any way to map to Google Groups. Regardless, DejaNews has been dead for a long time and according to the discussion below there are only trivial usages of this prefix remaining. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


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

Time2wait.svg On hold: see below. Nemo 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty, Support Support deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This one's is not on the map? Thehelpfulone 13:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he meant AbbeNormal [7]? --Nemo 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have a personal blog on the map? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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


Wiki is a very common word nowadays, and most people think of Wikipedia when they see a wiki: link. Instead, probably for historical reasons, it points to, which is a grossly outdated unknown to most web site. They might have been the first wiki, and I have a great respect for that, but I don't think that warrants a "wiki" namespace. They can keep the other three namespaces if that's important. --Yurik (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. -- YPNYPN 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I would actually suggest retargeting wiki: to the interwiki map. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose. Wikipedia is not the only wiki. Don't reinforce the idea that it's correct to call Wikipedia "Wiki". --Yair rand (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How does removing this prefix reinforce that idea? LtPowers (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would much prefer that the prefix was removed and unassigned. It is now too generic in its use to be assigned, internally or externally. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the proposal. I thought it also included making wiki: direct to Wikipedia. --Yair rand (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Support removal. There is rarely reason to go to and it has three other more specific prefixes C2:, PyWiki: and WikiWikiWeb:. Most people probably expected to go somewhere else for wiki:, for example Wikipedia or the project space for the wiki they are currently at, or they may think it's a name for the unnamed mainspace. Note: On 25 December I linked this discussion from en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Question about wikipedia search. All replies were posted since then. Here are other examples of confused users:
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 105#Bug in Wikipedia Search?
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 62#Using the .5B.5Bwiki:anything.5D.5D tag on Wikipedia redirects to non-Wikipedia website
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 52#Entering "wiki:" into search box redirects to
PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
More examples of confused users at the English Wikipedia:
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 17#Why does search for "wiki:<anything>" goes to a site of Ward Cunningham?
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 July 4#Searching for or linking to "wiki:foo" redirects to a blank page at
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 September 11#What is this?
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 June 16#Umm...
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 January 13#Redirect problem
There is an old discussion at Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2008#wiki:. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Support remove. It is a issue in other languages to - pl.source. Sp5uhe (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Support removal, but keep it unassigned for now until we can (a) assess how many uses of it there are on Wikimedia wikis; and (b) evaluate and decide what the best purpose (if any) of the prefix is. wiki: --> Wikipedia feels nasty. This will need further thought and deliberation. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    @MZMcBride. You able to dig up the usage information, so we can see how much work is involved to clean up. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Question: Can someone comment on my suggestion that this be retargeted to the interwiki map? If "wiki" is generic, we don't know where they want to go. But that place might be on the map. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean wiki:pagename should ignore pagename and always go to // with no $1? I don't know whether entries with no $1 are allowed, and it would still confuse users who think wiki: is the mainspace or project space at their current wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. I don't know if that's technically possible, but thought it was a good idea. Any confusion issue should be able to be resolved by modifying the note at the top of the InterWiki Map slightly to explain how people got here and what the Interwiki Map is. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment thanks to @PiRSquared17: new helping tool, I have been able to review what is in place. We have a mixture of bad links where people think that wiki: is a shortcut to w:, others where it is a typo for wikt: and those that legitimately point to Wade's wiki. I have been through and fixed all the live links across the wikis, though did not change any in talk pages or archives.

I think what we should do is to create a new interwiki for Wade's links and I am suggesting c2: and once that is in place, we undertake a global replacement of those links to his wiki (there is probably only 100-200 target links, and they are not hard to identify); then once that is done we simply kill the wiki: interwiki; dead blue links now, dead red links later.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

PiRSquared17 tells me that we already have c2: for Wade, so it shouldn't be controversial to move them, which I am now doing, and it would indicate that it is not a requisite link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed Converted the wiki to c2, removing it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not all usages have been removed. It's always sad to see the irresistible expansion of linkrot. :( --Nemo 14:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Talk page links might as well be fixed too. There are 1060 soon-to-be-broken links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I archived CSV of remaining wiki: links before it was removed, but this assumes that they are all in the interwiki table, which is unlikely (see below). We can do better, but I don't really want to spend more time on this unless someone cares. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Page titles on WikiWikiWeb follow a strict CamelCase format and can be distinguished from project-space links by matching against the regex /wiki:[A-Z][a-z]+[A-Z][a-z]+([A-Z][a-z]+)*/. When I'm home later today I'll split the list entries for enwiki and submit a bot request, which will take care of 727 out of your 1074 broken links. — Scott talk 11:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Submitted.Scott talk 17:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
They didn't seem to be very helpful so I just did it myself with AutoWikiBrowser. — Scott talk 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


A pile of spam advertising acne medication... did someone let their domain registration expire? It might be worth clicking through the entire list of non-WMF wikis and removing any which don't resolve or return spam. 18:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks unused, +1. --Nemo 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The options as I see it:
  1. Remove link completely
  2. Change to$1
  3. Contact Gojko and ask him about moving the content to another domain
Since it is unused, I will implement option 1 unless someone comments in 2-3 days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I will remove this now. Consider this Removed Removed and Closed closed unless you have any objections. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken URLs[edit]

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


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

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


The site has been down for the last year, the owner has abandoned it. I filed a request to add the since launched official Gentoo project wiki to replace this entry (with another prefix as explained there). —A3li (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's check existing links first. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a request above about Are they one and the same? If so, is that just a url change? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: They are different. I just checked existing links to gentoo-wiki. Here is a complete list of links: arwiki: gentoo-wiki:HOWTO_Mencoder_Introduction_Guide, enwiki: gentoo-wiki:Main_page, enwikivoyage: gentoo-wiki:fr:Utilisateur:Xillimiandus, eswiki: gentoo-wiki:, frwikivoyage: gentoo-wiki:fr:Utilisateur:Xillimiandus, testwiki: gentoo-wiki:. I do not think that keeping the old Gentoo wiki is needed, as it is broken. The most important link is the arwiki one, as it is the only one that actually points to an article (from an article). I'm going to remove this now, revert if you disagree. And to prove they are different wikis, compare "HOWTO_Mencoder_Introduction_Guide" on the old gentoo-wiki and the new one. It does not exist on the new one. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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

See here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there's about 10 real uses (mostly on Should be easy to migrate. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

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

See #Ourpla above ... PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari: Some of us have much longer memories than you and don't feel the need to pass judgement on a site's "legitimacy". For what it's worth, I just came here to suggest removing John's wiki from the map. It's an artifact from the origin of the interwiki system, when we were a small family of sites belonging to individual people. Those days are long gone. — Scott talk 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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.


I propose switching sulutil:Nemo_bis to point to Special:CentralAuth/Nemo_bis. When "sulinfo" was first added, Special:CentralAuth was very limited. Nowadays, it's far more robust and far more stable than the Toolserver or Labs. This was brought up at bugzilla:53987#c13. Without objection, I'd like to switch the prefix (and perhaps add an "sulinfo" prefix...). If there are objections, I'd like to know what they are so that we can fix Special:CentralAuth to the point that an external dependency is no longer needed. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(somewhat related) I've always preferred CentralAuth to sulutil [in most cases] as it is faster, more stable, and that's what the purpose of the page is. It is however missing the list of global groups for a SUL account and local groups for each attached wiki. Of course, that can be fixed. If you agree that these features would be useful, I will file a bug for that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't pay much attention to the user groups, but I see you've filed bugzilla:56045 (thanks for that!). Do you think this bug is a blocker to switching the interwiki prefix? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily a blocker, but it would be nice to have CentralAuth give that info, as sulutil already does. Even if you don't pay much attention to rights, it's sometimes useful to find where someone's an admin, or to get a list of global groups (most people wouldn't use API or GlobalUsers). PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. --Nemo 06:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment sulutil:Nemo bis also shows registration date, user groups and edit counts on unattached projects (French Wikivoyage and Gujarati Wiktionary), whereas Special:CentralAuth/Nemo bis only displays the words "not attached". sulutil:Nemo bis also lists information about accounts on non-SUL projects (wmf: and two labswikimedia projects) whereas Special:CentralAuth/Nemo bis pretends that those projects don't exist. If you use sulutil:, you can also find account information even if no one has gone to Special:MergeAccount to create an account. This means that sulutil: has some extra information, but I don't know if people think that this extra information is essential. Also, most of the differences will go away once SUL has been finalised. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    The rights issue is bugzilla:56045. The other issues could be filed as enhancements as well, but I'm not sure they will be fixed before SUL is finalized. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    Stefan2: Do you consider any of the issues you mentioned to be blockers to switching the interwiki prefix? I'm a bit confused why newer projects such as the French Wikivoyage would be considered unattached or why it would be appropriate to show information for non-attached accounts (that seems antithetical to the purpose of the tool in some ways...).
    The reality is that the current tool is so slow we may be forced to switch over. I can't get <> to even load at the moment. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    It took 9m30.186s, according to `time curl ""`. This is unacceptably slow in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't use sulutil very often, so I don't think that I would personally be affected by a change of the interwiki prefix. sulutil:Nemo bis is currently way too slow and takes me several minutes to load, so it isn't very useful for the moment. I occasionally use SUL tools to check if a serial copyright violator also is violating copyright elsewhere, but due to sulutil being so slow, I tend to use Special:CentralAuth for this purpose instead.
I think that the question should be asked on pages which regularly link to sulutil using the interwiki prefix in case it affects someone's work. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This has always pointed to the external tool and that adds additional information including user rights. If we need a centralauth shortcut, then propose a separate shortcut that can be used, rather than one that overrides an existing tool. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2013.
    If CentralAuth gave user right info, would you support this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    Note that now it does, see testwiki:Special:CentralAuth/Legoktm (hasn't been deployed to meta yet). Legoktm (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    Billinghurst: Question above for you. The Toolserver is slowly dying and Special:CentralAuth will soon include both local and global user groups. Any reason not to switch where the prefix points? The argument that the prefix has historically pointed to an external tool doesn't hold much weight for me. A major benefit of using an interwiki prefix rather than a full external link is that the target can be updated based on future events, such as Special:CentralAuth becoming more robust. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • While Special:CentralAuth is more reliable than TS, there are the following differences (apart from listing global/local groups, which will be available also here soon, as we read):
    • sulutil lists the registration time for local accounts, S:CA the time of attachment to the SUL account.
    • S:CA shows no data for unattached accounts
    • For usernames for which there is no global account, S:CA doesn't show anything at all, while sulutil displays all local accounts with the name.
    These should be fixed before changing the interwiki link direction (especially the last point). However, it can maybe be updated to the labs version ( already now? --MF-W 23:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    I used //$1 so Yes check.svg Done. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


Please change flickrphoto: and flickruser: so they point to // instead of in order to link to the HTTPS protocol when enabled. --ralgis·/t/ 20:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the HTTPS version of Flickr use instead of It seems that the change is bigger than just a simple removal of the protocol. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I already changed it to protocol-relative, but I can change it to something else if you want. Is there actually a difference between and If so, why not redirect the latter to the former? Since there's no way to separately specify https and http links, this would not be easy to do. It may be possible if there is already a redirect service like this that is protocol-relative. But, to reiterate, are these subdomains different at all? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Per this, I think what I did was fine. :-) PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK[edit]

Not urgent, but wmuk: no longer needs to be pointed at , but rather simply (the wiki. has been made superfluous). Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I removed the "wiki.". Hope I didn't mess up. Savhñ 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Spain[edit]

wmes: points to but it is a redirect to --ralgis·/t/ 17:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for delay, I didn't notice this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Ralgis (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Generic Wikimedia prefix[edit]

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)

This sounds like a good idea to me, but I think we'll have to create a bug for it. (I don't think the script that updates from this map will understand things like wm => http://$$2.) Cbrown1023 talk 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
bugzilla:24748 Huib talk Abigor 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"chapter:" interwiki[edit]

I've filed a bug: 24442 - "chapter:" interwiki link doesn't work for non chapters wikis. --Nemo 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose to add wmde: etc. interwiki as a workaround for all wikis listed in bugzilla:24442#c0. --Nemo 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Done for all wikis; wmau is the only website which had already been added. --Nemo 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Since wmno, wmfi, wmpl etc. are also added. Please add "wmnl" to the map as well. Address:$1Krinkletalk 15:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -Barras 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be no interwikis for Wikimedia Pennsylvania (wmpa-us) and Wikimedia Brazil (wmbr). Ruslik 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


It's impossible to create a link with this interwiki to ? Liangent 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if links to google are that useful. Every language uses an other language code for google to get the information they want. I don't think we should add this. -Barras 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
google:foo already works. Liangent is asking if there is a way to search "1 2". πr2 (talk · contributions) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
[[google:{{urlencode:1+2}}]] -> google:1+2. X! 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As πr2 said, I'm trying to search "1 2", and after being encoded it becomes "1+2". Liangent 08:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
{{urlencode:1+2}} → 1%2B2 πr2 (tc) 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So the question is, how to transform "1 2" into "1%202". Or rather, how to use rawurlencode() instead of urlencode(). –Krinkletalk 14:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I didn't knew untill now, this has been recently added to MediaWiki in 1.17 (not yet deployed on Wikimedia sites yet). {{urlencode:string here|PATH}} uses rawurlencode. Example: {{urlencode:1 2|PATH}} => 1%202 (in the future this would expand to "1%202" instead of "1+2"). –Krinkletalk 14:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that there's been a short discussion before, Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2009-09#URL_encoding, and there's an open bug (bugzilla:15274) with some recent comments. --Nemo 21:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

see: {{URLENCODE:string|foobar}} at mw:Help:Magic words#URL_data and mw:Thread:Project:Support desk/URLENCODE and related functions as encodeURIComponent ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Use mw:Extension:InterwikiRegex! Leucosticte (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there something we can actually do to the page in its current form to fix this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Liangent: I think this was part of the reason someone had me write tools:~mzmcbride/redirector/google/1+2. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Could you make one of those to redirect to ("Generic Wikimedia prefix") or for using IW links? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but the whole system is hackish and requires writing esoteric redirect logic that I hate. Do you have an account on Toolserver or Labs? It shouldn't be too difficult to set up your own redirects. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm no expert at PHP or security. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe there's any PHP involved in this. It's just using some strange syntax that the Web server supports, as I recall. And security issues aren't really relevant if you're just passing input through. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As a more comprehensive fix, what do you think of the idea of adding an iw_regex field to the interwiki table? That regex would then be applied to interwiki URLs ($attribs['href'] or whatever). Shall I file a bug report? Leucosticte (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm reminded of this quote. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ticket: and OTRS:[edit]

Is there any way to control what happens if just ticket: and otrs: are used? wikipedia: redirects you to wikipedia:Main Page, can that be done with these links? Currently, using either link without anything after the colon takes you to an error page - for the former and for the latter. Ideally, both links should take you to – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 No, there's no way. --Nemo 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The pages look the same anyway (at least to someone who isn't logged in to OTRS) PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Something to look for: Pretty RFC[edit]

A cool new RFC reader site which does not have much content yet: pretty-rfc. If the author adds all RFCs as he says he will, this will be a good candidate for the RFC interwiki links, as it is superior to IETF's own viewer in all regards. --Tgr (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Table style[edit]

I propose table class to change from class="plainlinks" to class="wikitable sortable plainlinks" which shouldn't break anything. -- とある白い猫 chi? 16:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


I think it would be practical to have a log such as Spam blacklist/Log to register additions, removals and changes of interwiki prefixes. Since it's a low traffic page, one per year would be enough. We could start on 2013 if folks agree with. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I assumed there already is a log, but apparantly there isn't. Trijnsteltalk 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Support Practice exists in multiple places, and for good reason. IMNSHO may as well start now rather than wait, and annual log file seems appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the request, why isn't page history enough? Are there administrators not using edit summary? (If yes, let's desysop them!) --Nemo 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful for someone contemplating adding a new request to know what the discussion was for previous requests. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping someone from creating such archives. Leucosticte (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Leucosticte: There's a search box on Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives. Is that what you meant? A log would be like Spam blacklist/Log. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured it probably existed and I was overlooking the obvious. Leucosticte (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Clean up?[edit]

Is it time for a clean up of the list? When was the last one? It'd be nice to make sure all the links (a) still work; and (b) are still appropriate for inclusion.

Somewhat related to the section above about logging, an annotated version of this list would be nice so that you can see who added which entry when and why. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The last one was about a year ago, when we made everything protocol-relative. There are already some proposed removals above but nobody has checked and fixed the usage of those interwikis yet. --Nemo 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Many are 404, "parked" as spam or simply do not resolve. How can there be "usage" worth preserving if the target does not exist? 16:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The URL itself is information, while a prefix you don't know the URL translation of is just junk (a mysterious red link). You can help check them at #Broken URLs. --Nemo 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow non-wikis[edit]

Proposal: Let's allow sites other than wikis to be added if they are very useful. For example, the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or "unihan" above. @Nemo bis, MZMcBride: opinions? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The current proposed addition guidelines say "should" rather than "must" (cf. RFC 2119). This is probably sufficient. We already include a number of non-wikis (e.g., "google:"). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Then nobody would care if I complete the requests above for non-wikis? Okay, I'll do that then. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Should a separate oeiswiki prefix be added? It would be equivalent to oeis:wiki/$1. I assume this would be considered a duplicate. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not really needed. You save one character in [[OEISWiki:Sequence_of_the_day]] vs. [[OEIS:wiki/Sequence_of_the_day]], but it could confuse editors trying to add A-numbers to their wikis. Please ignore me, if one or more active OEISWiki contributors like this suggestion. –Be..anyone(oeis) 19:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, this isn't needed and probably shouldn't be added. Thanks for the comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can the iwlinks database table be trusted?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Add class="wikitable sortable"[edit]

Just to help keep us sane and happy, could someone please add the class names wikitable sortable to the table? This will not affect the script, as it ignores all lines which do not match the regular expression ^\|\s*(.*?)\s*\|\|\s*(.*?)\s*$. Since the header line begins with {|, it will be ignored. This, that and the other (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cache update[edit]

Cache was updated yesterday (see, for example, zzz wiki:foo wiki:foo tfwiki:rgijege), please bump the date. This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing broken links[edit]

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

Abolishing the interwiki map[edit]

See Tim Starling's proposal to quit adding new interwiki prefixes and begin using URLs instead of interwiki links. He raises some interesting points. Leucosticte (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Next time you start a discussion directly related to this page, could you please let us know here? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to leave a note here; I simply forgot. This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A post in that discussion links to mw:Requests for comment/New sites system, which may also be of interest to readers here. — Scott talk 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone want to set uo archiving after 6m of no comments in a section? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It may not be possible using a bot, since we need level-3 headers to stay under the relevant level-2 header in the archive. Additionally, some posts are still current or unresolved after 6 months. I would prefer to continue manually archiving. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]