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.

MBA Library[edit]

link:$1 prefix:mba:

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

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

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


link prefix:orain

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

I don't really see why, it doesn't seem like it so far contains any content of interest. --MF-W 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at requirements:
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects No (and this one is very important)
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects Yes (won't be spammed)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) Yes (CC BY-SA 3.0 by default [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)

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)


link:$1 prefix:localwiki:

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

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: Yes! There are currently a number of links to LocalWiki throughout Wikipedia, though some are using the older wikispot: Interwiki prefix. Links currently exist with wikispot:,, and the older domain, Note: was an old project of ours, and while it's still maintained (and hence retiring the wikispot: prefix would be premature), we've imported all locally-oriented data into the new LocalWiki project.
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: Yup! We have a fairly large editor community that regularly patrols all of our edits.
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Yup! All of LocalWiki is licensed under CC-BY, with map data being licensed ODbL for OpenStreetMap compatibility.
  4. be a wiki: Yup.
  5. have reasonable amounts of content: LocalWiki is probably one of the largest wikis, with over 100,000 pages (see
  6. not contain malware: No malware, and an active editor community to prevent malware and spam.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

FWIW I've added an "SVG wanted" tag to LocalWiki logo.png and stripped blank lines in your numbered list here (was 1. 1. 1. instead of 1. 2. 3.). –Be..anyone (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, c:File:LocalWiki_Logo.svg created by a commons contributor. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Support, above 100 links in the top 40, proponent AWOL. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Support I'd love it if LocalWiki could be added to the map before the next update!
The old service will be shut down on April 1st - Most all projects have moved to LocalWiki, and we would like to update the interwiki links. Could the LocalWiki link be added?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)


The following discussion is closed.

link:$1 prefix:owasp:

Useful programming resource run by a charity and quoted by many; having interwiki links would save me some effort integrating the advice in pages. --Nemo 11:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

owasp:Advertising doesn't sound like a charity, how about an InterWiki for relevant W3C pages? –Be..anyone (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I understand that objection, but in any case, being run by a charity (or otherwise) isn't a huge factor here. If it meets the criteria it should be added.
Support Support This, that and the other (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Support after seeing 134 links for a click on top 40; {{question}} != {{o}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: added -- M\A 16:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[edit]

: A spin-off of This Russian edition houses texts that have free licenses but which have BY SA-NC-ND requirements. This makes them inappropriate for Wikisource or the Canadian Wikilivres but still useful to WMF projects. Most content is in Russian but he site is multilingual and has over 7,000 pieces of content. For those who don't read Russian (such as myself), there are some inclusion criteria and they keep really crufty or OR-type work at their sister site Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a matter of curiosity (no opinion either way on inclusion) - is it run by the same people who run the Canadian Wikilivries? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Above, it says that one criterion for an interwiki prefix is that the site should "be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)". CC's NC and ND licences are not "Commons-acceptable". Therefore, it seems that the site doesn't meet the criteria for getting an interwiki prefix. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Philosopher: No, it was made by a user who had NC/ND content on the Canadian site but they rejected that license and so moved it to his own site. @Stefan2: That's just a guideline but CC BY-NC-ND licenses are free content (just not Commons-compatible) and there is other free-er content on the site as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: CC BY-NC-ND is not a free (libre) license, although perhaps it could be called a "gratis" license. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: The distinction isn't lost on me but as pointed out above and below, it's only a guideline and CC-NC/ND licenses are free-er than full copyright. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why that guideline is there. Wikis can contain useful content even if that content is not released under a free license. I suppose we prefer freely-licensed wikis, but if a particular wiki is not, I definitely don't consider it a show-stopper. This, that and the other (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 for Justin and This, that and the other, otherwise CC-BY-NC OEIS: won't fly, and you couldn't parse the first minute of this video. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 here too. I have no issue with CC-BY-NC/ND links at some sites, that is about the next use, not the current use, though I am happy to keep the guidance taut and manage edge cases like this through discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Code As an aside, it looks like so far there is an emerging consensus. Assuming that continues to be the case, what should the code be? wikilivresru? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this should be added. The "free content" rule should be a guideline not a requirement (even RMS supports using verbatim licenses in some cases). wikilivresru is fine. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @PiRSquared17: I actually wanted to add things to .ru because Stallman licenses his essays with ND licenses (but .ru requires a real name be submitted, so I won't join their site). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:33, 18 March 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)

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 [2]? --Nemo 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have a personal blog on the map? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

Broken URLs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed: Removed

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

See #Ourpla above ... PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari: Some of us have much longer memories than you and don't feel the need to pass judgement on a site's "legitimacy". For what it's worth, I just came here to suggest removing John's wiki from the map. It's an artifact from the origin of the interwiki system, when we were a small family of sites belonging to individual people. Those days are long gone. — Scott talk 15:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: I just said it wasn't legitimately useful as an interwiki link (which seems fairly accurate). Please excuse me if I caused any offense. Kaldari (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done, removed -- M\A 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Enciclopedia Libre[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No action taken from now. Request withdrawn as site is up again.

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

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

Crisis averted It came back up at the turn of the year. There's some discussion of it going down but I don't see why exactly. They actually installed a new version of MediaWiki in the meantime as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No action taken for now. -- M\A 16:15, 14 January 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)



The following discussion is closed.

Undiscussed addition, does not exist / does not work for me. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Works for me with http and https.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. What exactly is not working? --Glaisher (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Works now also for me, maybe I hit the announced down time yesterday, or it was a DNS issue if the record is new. Out of curiosity, what is this, anyway? –Be..anyone (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Quarry is a site to run SQL queries of the WMF databases in toollabs. It allows static queries to be written easily at and for the wikis, and the interwiki provides redundancy for renaming of the tool away from labs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawn, problem solved. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:05, 13 April 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 [5], 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 [6] updated (except ar, ru), as well as some modules.[7] [8] --Nemo 07:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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)


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).


I guess this is the right section for this: Can we please change the two instances of "InterWiki" in the notice at the top of the page to "Interwiki" (i.e., title = InterWiki map" and notes = The '''InterWiki map''' charts… in the {{process header}} template call)? - dcljr (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously "we" can't, only sysops can.:tongue: No objection, but the vintage 2005 CamelCase is no typo, cf.InterWiki map. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I've changed it. (diff). --Glaisher (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
On topic nitpick: The script could be also "interwiki linked" as script. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Glaisher (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Removing interwikis from the table[edit]

Billinghurst and MarcoAurelio were of the view that the process for removing dead interwikis needs to be overhauled, because it was taking far too long. In my opinion, there are two reasons for this cautiousness:

  1. Sites that are down one month, may come back up the next month. (See #Enciclopedia Libre above.)
  2. We want to minimize, or if possible avoid, link rot by not breaking existing interwiki links.

So I propose the following rough process/guideline:

  • When proposing that an interwiki prefix be removed from the map because the site is down or inaccessible, the following procedure should be followed:
    • Try to ascertain whether the wiki has moved to a new location.
    • Make a post on this page in the #Proposed removals section, noting the type of error received (for example: blank page; 404 error page; "wiki not configured" error; 403 Forbidden; parked domain/spam page; domain cannot be resolved/DNS error)
    • It may be decided that, because of lack of recorded use, the prefix can be removed immediately. This is often the case when the prefix is of questionable relevance (for example: personal site; Linux users' groups). For other prefixes, remember that Tool Labs tools may not record very early uses of the interwiki prefix. This is a particular concern for interwiki prefixes with a long history or special significance.
    • Otherwise, the request should be put "on hold" for a period of time, in case the site comes back up. It is possible that the wiki administrator is on vacation and unaware that the site is down. Or perhaps they are late paying their hosting fees.
    • Once it is established that the site is down for the long term, interwiki links that use this prefix should be replaced with external links pointing to the same location (or potentially to the Wayback Machine if the wiki's content is still available there). It may be helpful to mention in the edit summary that you are aware that the links are broken/dead, and that you are performing the replacement for posterity's sake.

Also pinging @Nemo bis, PiRSquared17, Kaldari: What do you think? This, that and the other (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal for the process. Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: For what it's worth, a lot of my contributions to Meta are this map and I agree with these principles. The extent to which they are enforced should generally be proportional to 1.) how long the code has been on the map, 2.) how widespread its use is, and 3.) how relevant it was in the first place (a personal bliki versus a large and well-maintained free culture site). —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]