Talk:Interwiki map

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Interwiki map Archives (current)→
The associated page is used by the MediaWiki software to add and remove interwiki link prefixes (such as [[w:blah]] to "blah" on Wikipedia). Any Meta-Wiki administrator can edit the interwiki map. It is synced to the Wikimedia cluster every few weeks. Please post comments to the appropriate section (Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Requests for updates, Troubleshooting, or Other discussions); read the boxes at the top of each for an explanation. Completed requests are moved to the archives.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days.

Proposed additions[edit]

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

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

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

Add new entries at the bottom of the section. When requesting a new prefix, please explain why it would be useful keeping the above in mind. Admins, please allow consensus to form (or at least no objections to be raised over a period of a few days) before adding new entries, as once added they are hard to remove from the many copies around the world. Before adding a new entry to the interwiki map, use this tool to check whether any existing page names conflict with the proposed prefix.

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

Link:$1 prefix:regio:

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site: it is a special wiki for topics, that dont merit a separate Wikipedia article in but are appropriate for a wiki with more localized content and viewers. So serveral articles are used to be exported to from Sometimes articles are re-imported to, when topics have been gaining in importance.
    Many wiki-newbies start working in and then change to is suported by WMAT (Wikimedia Austria) as a partner project of WMAT
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects: It is a private wiki, that requires user registration before any edit is permitted. Registration is done by sysops and requires application via email;
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license): Source of files and pics is simply WikiCommons, see e.g. most used files on;
  4. be a wiki: yes;
  5. have reasonable amounts of content: lots of content already with 25,743,616 hits (!); see main side (german), among others;
  6. not contain malware: of course not.

Thanks a lot, --Agruwie (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There are many links to at user talk pages, because during relevance discussion or deletion discussion often is suggested as an alternative wiki for articles focusing on regional issues, best --Agruwie (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[edit] was the old domain name of the wiki before the move in 2016. All the links to are automatically redirected to

Link:$1 prefix:Transit:

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

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

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

Link:$1 prefix:wikitrek:

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

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

Tu summarize:

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

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

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


Link:$1 prefix:lenciclopedia:

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



Prefix: mariowikide or demariowiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically we can already link there using mariowiki:Special:GoToInterwiki/de:Spezies (although that is definitely not convenient). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, there are 84 links to on de.wikipedia. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)



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

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

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


  • prefix: wikimania:

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

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

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

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


  1. Miraheze is a non-profit wiki farm that hosts a growing number of wikis, including educational wikis and those belonging to other non-profits. Many wikis from Wikia have either migrated or are in the process of migrating to Miraheze. Additionally, Miraheze develops its own extensions and lists them on
  2. Miraheze has a team of Stewards and operates a Counter-Vandalism Team that police content. Spam and advertising are against their content policy.
  3. Wikis are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 by default.
  4. It's a wiki farm, so yes.
  5. The service contains over 3380 wikis as of 19:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC).
  6. No malware.

The way links to wikis would be written would be somewhat similar to the current interwiki for Wikia: [[miraheze:mh:foo:bar]] would create a link to, which would then redirect to —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Question Question: There has to be a point and value to providing the interwiki, though it has not been spoken about its use, so why would we link to meta.miraheze? Looking at the top40 WPs, and the links, they are from user pages to user pages, there is next to no content linking. The content wikis at miraheze all have their own subdomain names, so doesn't appear to be a particular useful interwiki preparation. Comment Comment I would not see that we would envisage a two letter shortcut.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Billinghurst: does not currently work for Miraheze interwiki links. Writing does not redirect to its intended target (as of this writing it gives only a 404 page). Writing or does, however, redirect to their intended targets. Meta was selected because it is the Meta Wiki of the wiki farm and thus the de facto home wiki. Of course, the main intention of this interwiki is to be able to redirect to any of the wikis on Miraheze, not just Meta. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      I must not explained myself well enough. I believe that I suitably understand the technical aspect of interwikis. What I don't believe that has been explained is the social requirement for the interwiki links that you are proposing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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.

Doom Wiki[edit]

The original Doom Wiki is now at$1. Please replace the Wikia wiki interlink with the new url. Arianator with love (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The wikia site redirects to This needs a proper discussion and resolution in preference to a one person nominating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Phab request to update interwiki[edit]

I have lodged a request to update the interwiki map following the series of updates above.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 9 April 2019 (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).

Other discussions[edit]

When to accept or reject a request[edit]

I would like to suggest to better explain to the users how the accept or reject decisions are made and in what time frame. As you can see from the list above, there are several requests lying here since months (in some cases for more than an year) and it is not clear (at least to me) if and when a request will be accepted or rejected.
At the top of the page it is written Admins, please allow consensus to form (or at least no objections to be raised over a period of a few days), but this is clearly not the case as months are passing, not days.
So I would say that either the approval process is not working as expected, or it is not explained in a clear way to the reader. LucaMauri (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the text reflected the early days, not the current days where the requirements of the wikis are more specific, and where we have less requirement for change. I don't think that the process is wrong, it is simply that those cases you highlight don't demonstrate a consensus to add, and it is be better instruction to proponents that needs revision. Requests here need the input of the wikis where the links will be used. I would suggest that these proponents need to place their request here, then announce their requests at those wikis where they expect the uses to occur, so that the broader community can reach that consensus here.

Clear cases of demonstrated use, especially internal use, have been approved. Low use, uncertain requests have sat here awaiting a consensus that the value for addition exists.

In my opinion, administrators are here to undertake the addition/change/removal after a consensus has been reached, not to generate the discussion to form a consensus. We could close requests as not done, if they haven't got that clear consensus, or we can leave them open, as has been the practice. [The community decides where we are going, administrators are the conduit to implementation.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point and understand your reasons. But then again, information to the users needs to be updated.
First of all: who is in charge of reviewing documentation? Is this something we users should take care of, or an Administrator is better suited for?
Secondly, how we define consensus? Do we need 10 {{support}}? Or 20? Or 1.000? And how to weight them against any number of {{oppose}}?
I think we need at least a general guideline to know how to approach a proposal and gather supporters.--LucaMauri (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

rendering/distinction between internal and external links[edit]

Is there a way to introduce distinct rendering for the entries here? Before the interwiki map was opened to allow prefixes for external sites, readers could visually clearly distinguish between an internal links (WMF projects) and external links, but now that is not possible anymore. This imho rather confusing and also counterintuitive to the rules in some/many wikipedias, which allow external links only in certain section and not the article's main text. Not to mention that some if the entries here somewhat violate the usual criteria for external links of some wikipedias as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The rendering of interwiki links is controlled by the CSS class .extiw: in our MediaWiki installation we decided to show a small sunflower icon (WikiMedia logo) next to any interwiki link and we managed to do this simply adding a background-image property to the class in the CSS. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is not an easy way to differentiate between different sites. The general idea would be to add a second class – beside .extiw – to the links identifying the prefix of the website where the link points to: then it could be possible to customize every links in a similar way as the <li> elements in the sidebar. This should be suggested as a change to MediWiki codebase, but I haven't found the time to do so, yet. --LucaMauri (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki link search tool[edit]

Hey, I just randomly decided to check this talk page and realized that the tool is down (and probably has been down for quite some time). I haven't logged into tool labs at all in several years so it's kind of a miracle that it was even up in 2018. Anyone know how I can get it back up? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg resolve by application owner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki map/detailed table[edit]

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

Instructions to Meta-Wiki administrators[edit]


Update logs[edit]

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

Current map in the configuration[edit]

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