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, 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.

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

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) 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


link prefix:orain

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

I don't really see why, it doesn't seem like it so far contains any content of interest. --MF-W 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at requirements:
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects No (and this one is very important)
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects Yes (won't be spammed)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) Yes (CC BY-SA 3.0 by default [1])
  4. be a wiki Yes obviously
  5. have reasonable amounts of content No (AFAICS)
  6. not contain malware Yes obviously
PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't say anything for 1 really but in regards to 5, since it is a wiki farm - the wikis in it count as content points. One to see is this wiki. A few others exist but probably not contributing anything to Wikimedia per se John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, that wiki seems to just be a MediaWiki fork of, which already has an interwiki prefix (tvtropes:). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering this. I would appreciate it if This, that and the other would comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that Wikia is in the interwiki map, while ShoutWiki is not, for whatever reason. From a content perspective, Orain presently seems closer to ShoutWiki than Wikia. I personally would be in favour of adding both ShoutWiki and Orain simply for completeness' sake, but that's just a personal thing and not necessarily supported by strong, accepted reasons.
On the technical side, interwiki links to individual Orain wikis appear impossible with their current setup. They need a central redirector like Wikia, or at least to put all their wikis on their interwiki map. This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Noting here that Orain seems to have been compromised with no stated date of revival: see [2]. Thanks, --L235 (talk) enwiki 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

ICANN Wiki[edit]

link:$1 prefix:icannwiki:

ICANNWiki, the independent collaborative resource for the ICANN community.

  • There is Top Level Domain explosion. WikiPedia do not allow creating pages for every top level domain.
  • This wiki contains very detailed information about all the generic top level domains.
  • Has many other topics related with the top level domains, such as DNSSEC.
  • Some of ICANNWiki sponsors are Google, VeriSign, ICANN, Donuts, Sedo, Dyn, DotAfrica, Radix.
Wikipedia has allowed pages about every top-level domain. There are hundreds of country-level domains, for instance. Not sure what "sponsors" have to do with anything, as we are not for sale? K7L (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
K7L, check out w:Template:Generic_top-level_domains, I have created some pages like etc, they have all been proposed for deletion or they were redirected. Plus, I have been blocked for a week for mass creating new pages (they claimed that for example .ninja is not popular thus cannot be created). Okay, if this is the case let's at least link them to ICANN Wiki. --Kirov Airship (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose, massive spamming for new TLDs on enwiki, actually a case for the spamblock instead of the interwiki list. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean this site has been spammed as an external link? This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, some rather poor enwiki new TLD stubs with a link to this site as everything remotely resembling a notable 3rd party reference (not counting ICANN itself as 3rd party.) Not their fault, they are also victims of the new TLD flood. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
As a general comment, this wiki does seem very detailed, particularly in regards to gTLDs, but I also wonder about how serious it is. It seems to include a cartoon drawing of each individual alongside their photo, which is really bizarre. Does anyone know if it is an official ICANN-sanctioned project? It claims to be, but I wonder... This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Having looked more closely, it does seem to be a perfectly serious wiki - the "caricatures" just being a part of its community identity - and I would Support Support this addition. The fact that the site was spammed isn't necessarily the fault of the wiki operators, and the potential for legitimate use is clear. This, that and the other (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mobile version of WMF wikis[edit]

Could we have some interwiki for the mobile version of the current wiki (the one where the interwiki is inserted)? E.g. [[something:here]] would point to, and on Portuguese Wikipedia it would point to Helder 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What would the purpose be? As far as I know, we also don't have interwiki links for e.g. the monobook or modern skin, and use "?useskin=monobook" resp. "?useskin=modern" when linking instead (the same way you can link to the mobile skin minerva using "?useskin=minerva"). Vogone (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the table can only do //some.thing.example/$1 for the current scheme (http: or https:) and other://some.thing.example/$1 for other schemes (ftp:, irc:, http:, https: at the moment), but not something else depending on the current URL. Maybe that could be handled as phabricator: request, I'm not aware of any "mobile URL of current URL" magic word. On Wikia somebody created a "skinswitch" button (=tab on monobook, a script) to flip from monobook to oasis or mobile for quick tests, doing what Vogone said. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to link to <someCodeForMobile>:Special:PermaLink/40773227#Solução em Rn on the edit summary for this change. Helder 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should be moving away from these relative interwiki links. They already caused issues even with global user page. Glaisher (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WMF Vote Wiki[edit]

link: //$1 prefix:votewiki:

  • Proposed link: //$1
  • Proposed prefix: votewiki:

I think it would be helpful to add the WMF's Vote Wiki, since it is one of the few WMF wikis not yet on the list. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think so? Is there any need to link it? As far as I remember, Special:SecurePoll already fulfills the purpose of directing to votewiki in case of ongoing elections. Vogone (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
In the top 40 (see above) two 2013 links from w:id:, two 2014 links from w:en:, and one user page link to the votewiki main page explaining that there should be no need to edit votewiki, and that Special:Securepoll on local wikis is supposed to handle votes on votewiki. 26 users including you and 12 blocked users contributed to 38 pages. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is possible that the elections committees will be using it more to archive things - but it is a fair point that as of this moment, the usage is low. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Just used "votewiki" on Wikimedia Forum and was shocked that it didn't work. Shocked more that we don't have any prefix for the wiki. Went here in order to request one but as there's already a request I endorse it. To be forced to link to a wikimedia wiki in external link style is mildly speaking weird. Even if it won't be highly used prefix it should exist IMHO. --Base (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed -- it should be added if only for consistency PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Base: For what purpose did you need to link it? --Vogone (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vogone: for pointing to a file in there which very badly violates WMF licensing policy. --Base (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


link: //pokewiki,de/$1 prefix:pokewiki and prefix:pokéwiki

PokéWiki is one of the largest German Pokémon fansites and the largest German Pokémon Wiki with more than 19000 content pages. That´s why I think it should get an own interwiki prefix as well as its partner website Bulbapedia, which already has the prefix bulba:. Links to this website are used at dewiki ca. one hundred times. --MGChecker (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

After a bit research with Alexa I can say it is the most pouplar German Pokémon fansite at all. --MGChecker (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They are on the dewiki list of other wikis, not too bad. Project:About is empty, not too good.:tongue: But not pw:, that should be reserved for language codes. Apparently doesn't work,$1 would be okay for now. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn´ t think about https:// while typing. By the way, our About site is Project:Über PokéWiki, "Über" means "About". By the way, Project:About is an Redirect now. :P --MGChecker (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Touhou wiki[edit]

link: http://$$2 prefix:touhouwiki:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: hundreds of links from Top 40 Wikipedias
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among different wikipedia
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):The site wrote, "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. unless otherwise noted."
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content: it is in more than a dozen languages and four of those languages have >1000 articles, with English having >10000
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @C933103: $2 doesn't work as far as I know - however if we use$1 then links like de:foo will still work. Is this OK? (please ping when you reply) PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose "hundreds of links from Top 40 Wikipedias"—less than 200 by my counting, which converts to less than 5 links per wiki. I don't think this number demonstrate "clear use". whym (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


link:$1 prefix:moegirl:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: 50 limls from Chinese wikipedia which include project pages, article pages, talk pages, planning pages and such.
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among wikipedias
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):The site is labelled with cc-by-nc-sa 3.0
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content: 13000+ article in Chinese section of the site. Although the site also have English and Japanese department but there isn't much content in those department and thus I reqiest only link to zh.
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

    • CC-BY-NC-SA is not a Commons-acceptable licence. I note that the English and Japanese editions use CC-BY-SA without NC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


Status:    In progress

link:$1/$2 prefix:nicopedia:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: ≈600 usage in ja wikipedia and >200 usage in zh wikipedia
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among different wikipedia
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):no. content are copyrighted.
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content: >370000 articles
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@C933103: $2 doesn't work as far as I know - however we could use$1 and force editors to put the slash in the link - is this OK? PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
How about using$1 which allow only links to word-themed content and let those who want to link descriptions about video/livestream/community/product/userpage/picture fallback to simple URL?C933103 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please better explain the site and its purpose  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The site record japanese daily and/or network language, info about anime/manga/game/artist/etc., as well as terms, people and background of video found on the niconico main site, and so on.C933103 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't think this is very useful. Practically the all existing links from reside on deletion requests and user pages. The only link in content space is on the article about the site itself. [3] Similarly, when limited in content space, has only a handful. [4] whym (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Status:    In progress

link:$1/?$2 prefix:wikiwiki:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: hundred of links from Japanese Wikipedia
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among different wikipedia
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Its edit history are anonymous thus its content would automatically fall into public domain.
  • be a wiki:Yes, wikifarm
  • have reasonable amounts of content: google search for found there're around 790,000 pages
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@C933103: please provide a better reason for why this should be added beyond "see how it is use at ..." There needs to be a reasoned proposal to how this will benefit the wikis, and how abuse will be avoided.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a Japanese wikifarm just like wikia in the world and I think it can use the same rationale as why wikia is added (despite I haven't check why wikia is added).C933103 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Similar to atwiki, this is a wiki farm that hosts multiple wikis managed by different administrators—there is no single level of trustworthiness and spam-freeness on It doesn't look very useful— most of the existing links (86, not "hundread", as of now) to from reside on deletion requests and user pages, not content pages. There are 4 links only in content space. [5] Besides, as far as I know, there are few to no free-content wikis on On the contrary to the statement "Its edit history are anonymous thus its content would automatically fall into public domain", Japanese laws recognize anonymous authors' copyright. As soon as an anonymous author registers to the authority, and unless counter evidence is provided, her copyright becomes effective. [6] whym (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet Archive Wayback Machine[edit]

Status:    Not done

link:*/$1 prefix:Wayback:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: massive usage across many Wikipedia
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among different wikipedia
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Most aren't.
  • be a wiki:Nope
  • have reasonable amounts of content: from what i remembere it achived more than thousands terabytes of content?
  • not contain malware:hard to rule out the possibility that sone sute it archive might cobtain malware?

C933103 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against the Internet Archive but I don't see why we need an interwiki prefix for this. On the other hand I don't see why not. @Nemo bis: what do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd say absolutely not, because 1) allowed wayback URLs are too complex and not all of them are linkable with an interwiki link; 2) wayback archives anything, therefore it clearly doesn't satisfy the "no spam" requirement which is the most important. --Nemo 07:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
better use case required as it can be a means to link to dubious sites, and such links could be subverted by interwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
with the proposed link scheme, if a user want to link to archive of e.g., he would still have to type [[:wayback:]] and I think the spam filter can function normally here. However I see the point of why this kind of link would not be desired to be shown as interwiki and thus I am not going to reopen this proposal.C933103 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@C933103: Not a good idea, because with this method, I have to type Captcha under CloudFlare (which IMHO needs VPN or Wujie/GoAgent enabled as per, and when I typed Captcha, it turns back to the main page of --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Status:    Not done

link:$1 prefix:pastebin:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: post source material, authorization letter, etc.
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: see how they are currently used among different wikipedia
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):ccbysa3.0
  • be a wiki:no
  • have reasonable amounts of content: breaked 65 million paste in June 2015, announced on official facebook account
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that we should. A pastebin does not sound like a tool that we wish to provide clean access to without a demonstrated need. It is too easy to abuse once it is interwiki'd and I cannot see a demonstrated use case put forward. Please reopen only if there is a demonstrated use case, and that would probably need invitations to the wikis to contribute. I just see danger, and once we add one of these scenarios, we would need to open up to many more such sites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Status:    In progress

link:$1 prefix:rodovid:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: hundred of links from many Wikipedias and provides some structured data. See also Rodovid and Wikimedia genealogy project.
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: They don't appear to be spammy as used in Wikipedias--please correct me if I'm mistaken.
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): CC-BY 2.5
  • be a wiki: MediaWiki
  • have reasonable amounts of content: Over 800,000 pages
  • not contain malware: None of which I'm aware.

Not also d:Property:P1185. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good - this should be added unless there are any objections PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: just the person: namespace? Are the other namespaces likely to be in effect? Nothing in the main namespace? If they possibly will be, I would think that we would either link to the base url, and let them do rodovid:Person:xxxx, etc. or we would be considering a variation per namespace if they are that many links required. I would prefer to not have a namespace extension by preference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I guess that does make sense. Adding the Person namespace can be done by hand or by template. A vast majority of the site is person records but there are also lineages and what have you. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Amending proposed link to be$1  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Status:    Done

Link:$1 prefix:fedora:

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site: it's definitely used plenty, see w:Special:LinkSearch/*;
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: again, see w:Special:LinkSearch/*; maintained by the Fedora Project, which is quite trusted;
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): CC BY-SA 3.0, see [7];
  4. be a wiki: yep;
  5. have reasonable amounts of content: lots of content already; see stats, among others;
  6. not contain malware: duh.

Thanks, --L235 (talk) enwiki 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Done (diff). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Status:    Done

WikiPapers is an academic wiki based on MediaWiki. In its words, it's goal is to produce a "compilation of resources (conference papers, journal articles, theses, books, datasets and tools) focused on the research of wikis. It aims to create the most comprehensive literature compilation for this research area." [8]

This makes it particularly relevant to Wikimedia sites, and it is indeed linked to from Meta and several Wikipedias. Its limited scope (academic publications about wikis) makes it an unlikely target for spam or malware. The content is under CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Because WikiPapers uses Semantic MediaWiki, this makes it possible to organize metadata about those publications in a structured format. In the future, WikiPapers might be made obsolete by something like LibraryBase, but in the meantime WikiPapers is a great complement to templated citations. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Maybe PiRSquared17, Hoo man or Glaisher, since you weighed in on the last few requests? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Guillaume (WMF): Looks good to me. I suggest adding it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. I have added it. diff. Sorry for the delay in response. --Glaisher (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both! :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit]

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

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


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

Time2wait.svg On hold: see below. Nemo 14:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Empty, Support Support deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This one's is not on the map? Thehelpfulone 13:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he meant AbbeNormal [9]? --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)
Only replying after two years for the record - before Wikipedia, the wiki network was just a few small communities and the personal sites of people like you and me. — Scott talk 15:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Broken URLs[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Support Support both: closure and rfc. -- M\A 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really sure what an RFC here is supposed to achieve. It's a fairly specific niche issue we're talking about here. Only a small number of people are evidently interested in the topic of interwiki linking. I think a standard discussion on this page should be enough to decide how to improve the process. This, that and the other (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @This, that and the other: That also works for me. It's obvious few of us are interested/know what this is for. -- M\A 18:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: I guess we should remove this now, right? -- M\A 18:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that we are right to proceed. I was proposing an RFC that would express how admins can act, rather than this interminable discussion that should have been wrapped up long ago. If we an express the framework of what is reasonable, and a time frame for consideration we can better handle this sort of situation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    @MarcoAurelio, Billinghurst: I have annotated the table above. Feel free to remove most entries from the map, including those which I have not annotated. But some of the wikis listed above should not be removed, as the sites appear to have come back up, or for other reasons. This, that and the other (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm working on the list right now. Will post shorty. -- M\A 09:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other, Billinghurst: Done a bunch of above [10] and added a note on the above table. Best, -- M\A 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[edit]

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

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

Oppose removal -- The above discussion seems to have missed the general-purpose BDSM encyclopedia aspect of the site, which will only grow in importance with the migration from "" to "". See etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping this in the interwiki map and at the same time updating the URL to$1. I think there is enough general-purpose content at the wiki to justify keeping it in the map - it certainly isn't just a "wiki devoted to a bunch of clubs in London". This, that and the other (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Glaisher: Any reason not to keep this and update the URL? Per my comment above, Kaldari's initial assertion is incorrect. This, that and the other (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Done now. diff --Glaisher (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


It pains my heart, however the former cornerstone of open source movement is now owned by @$^%#$^s who are using it for distributing malware[11][12], etc. In this situation, I believe we should not encourage linking to SF anymore. It has already been removed from MediaWiki's default interwikis. The number of affected links on WMF projects appears minimal. Max Semenik (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Requests for updates[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

Yes, we still desire this change, thank you. Although, could it be made to point to HTTPS? Thank you. Sgeo (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

link: //$1 prefix:CreaturesWiki:

Oppose Oppose, delete the old entry as redundant for wikia:creatures:Special:Recentchanges per nom, and close this request as withdrawn by nominator. There are zero links to in the top 40, and only 28 links (17 en + 3 de + 3 fr + 5 singletons) in the top 40 somehow arrive on

Maybe we are talking about 20 Interwiki links outnumbering the two communities by a broad margin. Disclaimer, I haven't checked that {{LinkSummary}} supports TLD .wiki. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DOI[edit] now has https support. The interwiki should be made protocol-relative. Per [13], better not make it https-only for now, as the secure version is slightly slower. I'm told they'll tell us if/when they are read to receive all traffic to https. --Nemo 08:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Barras talk 12:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Great! Reedy sync'ed it yesterday at 22 UTC and I already got all the templates [14] updated (except ar, ru), as well as some modules.[15] [16] --Nemo 07:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: See

Should be changed from "$1" to "$1" , I think. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See the section above requesting its removal --Glaisher (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

IRC and Freenode[edit]

All modern IRC clients have SSL/TLS support; since Freenode has as well, I hereby suggest changing the "Freenode" and "IRC" entries of the Interwiki map from "irc://$1" to "ircs://$1". --Pred (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

While all modern clients have the support, do all clients have the support?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No; without being too sure about it, I would imagine that security was as much as an afterthought for IRC as for any other protocols, and that as a result, no clients that came out in the meantime would have (RFC compliant) support. Wikipedia has an overview of protocol support of current versions of several clients. --Pred (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Change Arborwiki entries are now at$1 rather than$1. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Status:    updated

 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


creativecommonswiki: is now forcing HTTPS. change our map to use https for protocol.

$ echo; curl -vs 2>&1 >/dev/null | \
> egrep -e '^< HTTP/1' -e '^< Location: '

< HTTP/1.1 302
< Location:

Mindspillage, is your varnish config in git? --Jeremyb (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Status:    updated to be https for creativecommonswiki
 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeremyb: FWIW, I don't work there anymore; any config publicly available would be found by poking around on Github: [17] (and generally you can ask questions in #creativecommons-dev also). Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Updated.

URL format has changed from$1


Please update it. --Fryed-peach (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, but it'll take some days before the change goes live on the Projects, since Krenair just updated it a couple of days ago. —MarcoAurelio 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple URLs with support for protocol-relative URLs[edit]

Please consider using protocol-relative URLs for the following:

  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1/latest/ -> //$1/latest/
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1
  •$1 -> //$1

--Elegie (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - diff for WMF-hosted sites. --Glaisher (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
diff HTTPS for --Glaisher (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


This can now be pointed to$1 , as the wiki was imported there. --Nemo 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Change from$1 to$1

as the brea link seem no longer accessible.

C933103 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the report.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

HTTPS for WMES[edit]

Please change [[wmes:~]] from$1 to$1. Protocol-relative URL would be useless, WMES is now forcing HTTPS for navigation.

Thanks in advance. --abián 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Matiia (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2015 (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).

Broken links for,, and[edit]

Status:    Done

The following changes would be useful:

  •$1 (which appears to redirect to ) should be changed to //$1
  •$1 (which leads to a "Not Found" error page) should be changed to //$1
  •$1 should be changed to$1

--Elegie (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that some of the previous URLs are protocol-relative: this should help facilitate both HTTP and HTTPS access. --Elegie (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)$1 should be$1. fails. works. It was originally added in 2005 by an IP.[18] only finds 13 uses: 5 in English talk pages and a sandbox, 8 in the same Portuguese article pt:Demon (Tibia). Now that it's a Wikia wiki with a working wikia:Tibia:Main Page, maybe it should just be removed instead of fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Bot archival[edit]

I think that we should be adding {{status}} to each component and getting a bot to archive the respective sections a few days after they are set to done/not done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's for Steinsplitter to program if he's interested. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]