Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2007

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Barras in topic Discussions

Requests for updates


The following discussion is closed.

The current [[oldwikisource:]] does not allow "classical" interwiki linking (a link in "In other languages" section in sidebar). So either allow it or - if it could cause problems - create new, eg. [[wikisources:]] or [[multiwikisource:]] which would have the intended behavior. (and move this request to proper section above then)
Danny B. 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what is meant by "either allow it"? Is that a change here to some map entry? if so, what change? If not, maybe this is a bugzilla issue? I have no prob adding the new prefixes, but what would they map to? Sorry for not being clear on what is asked for by you, any clarification appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the "oldwikisource" site, more or less, dead? My understanding was that it was originally one multi-language site, and then split into different languages (,, etc). Adding interwikis to it seems to run contrary to this, though I will admit that I could be mistaken. EVula // talk // // 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Lar 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC): currently [[oldwikisource:foo]] does not add an item in "In other languages" section in sidebar, but behaves like classical inline link inside text. If I'm not mistaken, this is caused by some flag in interwiki map which sets if ([[foo:bar]] will behave like item in sidebar section and [[:foo:bar]] will be used for inline links) OR ([[foo:bar]] will be used for inline links).
@ EVula 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC): It's still being used by "small" languages.
@ both: The deal is, that currently is impossible to add in pages classical interwiki to appropriate pages on multilingual Wikisource.
Danny B. 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Danny B. as you may not have realised I'm actually not very savvy about this stuff despite being one of the folks that does a fair number of updates. What specific change are you proposing? Right now, the page has:
... what do you want it to say instead? What prefix or prefixes, and what link or links? If something else than a change to links is being asked for, as I said, it may be a thing to raise as a bug instead of a prefix/link change. Thanks, and sincere apologies for not getting what you are driving at! ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I pinged Danny B. about this on his talk, if we don't get closure on this within a few more weeks I suggest we close this as not done. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not done issues not resolved. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki puts a classical "in other languages" interwiki if the prefix is a valid language code — VasilievVV 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, I somehow missed this page. :-/
What I was proposing is the interwiki prefix which will put a link to to "in other languages" sidebar which [[oldwikisource:]] does not do. If you'll write [[oldwikisource:foo]] it will appear simply in text like oldwikisource:foo instead of appearing in sidebar while inline linking to language versions is normally done via prefixing the interwiki with the colon ([[:en:foo]] eg.).
Now the central Wikisource contains a bunch of languages which aren't linkable through "in other languages" section since there's no such interwiki prefix which would allow it. And since [[oldwikisource:]] is already widely used and changing of its behavior from no-colon-for-inline-links to colon-needed-for-inline-links would break probably lots of pages, I've proposed new interwiki which would behave as regular link to "other languages".
Example: on s:cs:Anton Pavlovič Čechov there are three links to en, ro and ru, however, on central Wikisource theres oldwikisource:Anton Pavlovic Cekov which is currently unlinkable in "in other languages" section due to lack of this style linking to central Wikisource. So say putting [[wikisources:Anton Pavlovic Cekov]] would put say "Central" to the list of interwikis in "in other languages" section.
Is it a bit clearer now?
Danny B. 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's something you have to ask for in BugZilla:. Titoxd(?!?) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not done as mentioned above. --Barras 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Other usable prefixes

The following discussion is closed.

It should be noted at the top of the Interwiki map page that there are a number of other prefixes that can be used. For instance, w: goes to Wikipedia. The reason they must be kept separate is because of language mapping. w: on will take you to, on the German Wiktionary it will take you to to the German Wikipedia etc.

As far as I know (mid-2006), there is no way for a page editor to discover these important interwiki links. The admin can check the database table, of course, but that's hardly usable. An extension exists but it needs a little more attention before it can be integrated into Mediawiki.

old, no time stamp/signature. Can be archived. --Barras 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria clarification?

The following discussion is closed.

There's been considerable discussion of this on wikien-l just recently. (Not because wikien-l is the list for Meta, but because en:wp has stupidly high Google page rank. So third party SEO spammers want us to give them points with fourth party Google, and never mind us, our editors or our readers ...)

Jonathan Stokes came up with a good first draft of suggested criteria, which I slightly reworded as follows:

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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) be reasonably developed.
Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered by the Wikimedia community to be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to Wikimedia projects, and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki links.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

Note that I made the deletion procedure the absolute simplest possible: trust Meta admins' judgement.

Are these clear? Are they sensible? Do they reflect the Meta admins' conception of the job here? - David Gerard 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is most sensible. Sj 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I support the general thrust of this, and the principles outlined seem spot on. However, did you cut his para about the consensus process? This page can have somewhat sporadic traffic, so just not having any opposition for some fixed period may not necessarily be sufficient. Perhaps just trusting judgement is sufficient. But it has been said that removal is a process that can introduce issues for wikis that used links with removed prefixes, so perhaps something more is required. I don't know for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I left that out to avoid a comparison to any articles-for-deletion page. The trick is that I don't know how to tell where interwiki links are being used across the various projects. I'll ask on wikitech-l - David Gerard 12:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam and link syntax shouldn't have anything to do with each other. If you want a nofollow whitelist, make a nofollow whitelist. It should be possible to link to untrusted sites using interwiki link syntax, and it shouldn't be necessary to replace all external links to a site with interwiki links in order to obtain the pagerank benefits.

For instance, any free hosting site with an advertising affiliate system will have a spam problem. Such a site may well be a wiki, they may well have a great deal of useful free content, and so we might want to support interwiki link syntax. But they may have some users who abuse the service, creating throwaway accounts and spamming Wikipedia. Nofollow would be an acceptable response to that.

On the other side of the coin, URL-style links to Wikimedia websites should clearly not have rel=nofollow. URL syntax is much more versatile than interwiki link syntax, so there are many cases where interwiki linking within the Wikimedia group of websites is not appropriate.

By linking the two essentially unrelated properties, you create pressure on meta admins to add more interwiki prefixes. Adding interwiki prefixes damages the stability of the site by making conflicting titles unreachable. The ability to create pages that start with the same prefix is lost, which may cause problems in the future for the many diverse wikis that use the interwiki map. I routinely remove potentially conflicting new prefixes from the interwiki map before I run the update script, and I don't want to be coming under fire from commercial sites trying to make a living from Wikimedia's pagerank when I do so.

-- Tim Starling 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, what would you accept in a patch to implement this in a manner not to make this a pain in the backside for the devs?
(And, of course, something to check if an interwiki prefix is in use would still be useful as a separate issue.) - David Gerard 13:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim, would you be willing to make available somewhere the list of conflciting new prefixes that you removed so we can know not to use them again (some prefixes may be suggested for more than one wiki...)? ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Before devolving again into the "nofollow/patch" debate, the immediate issue here is that this page contains no clear criteria for inclusion in the InterWiki Map. This confusion allows for the much publicized conspiracy theory that Wikia receives preferential treatment from Wikipedia. Simply providing a one paragraph explanation (like David's above) at the top of this page would dispell these much-hyped internet rumors, as it would become clear why Wikia and other sites are included on this list. Jonathan Stokes17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could ignore the nofollow paragraph as that really is a separate issue. As is finding out if interwiki prefixes are actually being used ('cos we don't know now). So the only remaining question that changes anything right now is how Tim rejects prefixes - David Gerard 08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[1] Well, that's one. - David Gerard 10:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A new suggested wording:

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

This leaves out nofollow, which is indeed a separate problem. It doesn't address how to know if interwiki prefixes are actually in use, but that's no change. And looking at the history, the devs will change or remove any conflicting interwiki as needed, so no change there either.

Is the above suitable for the content page? Is it actually more or less how things are understood to be now?

The special mention of Wikia on the content page probably doesn't help confusion ... - David Gerard 10:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up. I think these 5 criteria are enough to satisfy the Wikia conspiracy theorists, dispell allegations of favoritism, and provide a reference point for folks that don't understand why sites are/aren't included. Looks good. Jonathan Stokes19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like point 4. Why should it be a wiki?
I have seen on the list Mediawiki install which are far from being good and seem like a install to have a wikipedia, see for example [2] 2/3 of its pages are years or days (ie. templates). 6 registered users. Moreover, a mediawiki doesn't mean it's freely editable.
On the other hand there're sites like digg which are not wikis but really user powered.
IMHO, the concept should be broader, like straightforward to be user contributed (like a wiki).
Platonides 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Platonides, I agree. But note this is worded as guidelines, not rules. It says, "Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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." Jonathan Stokes 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There probably should be a clear and compelling reason to include a non wiki (that is, make the bar somewhat but not insurmountably higher). Certainly many of the nonwiki sites on there now make a great deal of sense to have on there. And some do not. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the motivation behind this move and fully support expanding 'follow' to good sites, I also strongly favor Tim's view that the interwiki map should be limited to wikis and a few highly-used free content sites because of the need to think of and create more and more interwiki prefixes. The interwiki map was also never intended to be a follow whitelist. It would be far better in my view, to simply have a 'follow' whitelist and to develop clear guidelines on listing sites there. A few suggested guidelines:

  1. Automatically include all .gov, .mil and .edu sites (perhaps other restricted TLDs)
  2. High content to ads/crap/list
  3. If ads present, then they must be small tasteful and unobtrusive
  4. Authoritative; Does the author have special training or experience in his/her field? Is the content vetted somehow? Has the site won awards for content?
  5. If login required to view full content, then at least provide useful summaries and full selected content (thinking specifically of journal websites)

I'm not sure of what exactly to do with the current situation though ('follow' on for any interwiki link) and think we should set that aside until after we develop a policy for a 'follow' whitelist. Finally, let's remember the original purpose of interwiki links; easy linking between wikis. --Daniel Mayer 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, if there were to be a "follow" whitelist, I think you've laid out good ground rules. However, if word got out of a WP:Whitelist, I imagine there would be thousands - even tens of thousands - of requests for inclusion. As well as the ensuing haggling over who is included and not included. It could be a big kettle of fish. Jonathan Stokes 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We definitely don't want to automatically include all .edu sites. Many of these are being abused by spammers because of their high google rank. See this diff for example. Angela 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Action... Any objections to adding David's wording (above) to the header of this page? All in favor? If no one else responds for a few days, I'll go ahead and make the change. Jonathan Stokes 04:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Objection: I am not in favor of the expanded use that these guidelines might cause. I would very much like to see some note along the lines of: "It must be shown that the link could or would be widely used". If a website would not normally qualify under a local projects WP:EL then I think we do that wiki a disservice by adding it to the interwikimap. Also, if a link is only apropriate on a small set of articles (A game's wiki, for example) then we are losing the powerful external link tracking tools with hardly any benefit at all. J.smith 15:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

very old discussion from 2007. --Barras 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Wording

J.Smith, a fair point. Is the wording under section (1) sufficient? For clarity, I assume we are proposing to place this wording at the top of this talk page under the heading "Proposed Additions." Jonathan Stokes 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness 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.
Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin.

existing interwiki links don't comply with this policy

Slight problem I'm noticing with the policy as currently proposed, specifically around items 3 and 4. A lot of existing interwiki links fit neither criteria -- for example, WikiHow (not creative commons I believe), Google (neither wiki nor GNU), (neither wiki nor GNU), IMDB (neither wiki nor GNU). I would argue that:

A) There needs to be consistency for policy for existing links as well as new proposals. So, the policy as currently proposed should result in a number of interwiki links being removed -- and I imagine that would wreak havoc with those accustomed to using them....

B) These criteria are too restrictive -- there's a lot of very useful stuff on IMDB. Why wouldn't we have interwiki links to them, even if the site isn't free? The purpose of interwiki links is to ease the inclusion of links to material that may be relevant to our readers. Sometimes that content is GNUed but often it is not, and that should not be a barrier to smoothing its inclusion.

What do others think? Parkerconrad 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed policy says "probably" rather than "must" so I would think a number of the existing links, besides being grandfathered (and thus being subject to a "pretty pressing need to remove" requirement before I would support them being removed), many of them qualify under more than 1 of the 5 even if not all 5 clauses. So I think it's OK. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see -- so the five items are meant as more of five different axes or criteria along which inclusion is judged, rather than as a "you must have all five of these things to be included"? IE, if you're strong in four but lack a fifth, then that's ok? Parkerconrad 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that's certainly the way I see it! I can't speak for others but that's the reasonable interpretation, I think. I have a hard time imagining that we'd delete any of the examples you gave... they're all too important. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
wikiHow licensing is Creative Commons, by-nc-sa --Versageek 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We have our own projects that don't seem to comply with this. I don't think Bugzilla qualifies as a wiki, for instance. Perhaps "is a wiki" in and of itself is a bad term and will attract rules-lawyers. How about "is a freely indexable or searchable site?" Has anyonne considered, also, the ramifications for sites not WMF-projects which use our map also? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that this discussion has kind of petered out... bummer. I think it's important we develop some clear guidelines on what to include and what not to include. To this end I make this recomendation: (Official WMF projects - automatic inclusion?)
  • The site must...
  1. ...have a wide enough focus as to make the interwiki link usefull
  2. respectable (as defined within the context of the subject matter)
  3. ...have something worth linking to
  • The site should...
  1. freely licensed (GNU, CC, etc)
  2. freely accessible
  3. non-profit
  • The site must not...
  1. ...have a history of spamming on our projects
  2. ...contain content which may be illegal. (copyvio, etc)
Just my two cents... The should, to me, are negotiable and leave us the wiggleroom for worthy sites like google, IMDB, etc. J.smith 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've tried to restart this, J.smith. I think your guidelines have merit. But I also think David Gerard's ones, above, in italics, are reasonable as well, especially since they include "is a wiki" (as one but not the only criteria). I'd also prefer some acknowledgement that not all sites we add fit every criteria (and that's ok!) One thing that I think is vital, which neither guideline addresses, is the process for addition here. I think it is very important that the addition or removal decision, no matter how well a site fits the guidelines, be a consensus driven process. To that end I think any addition needs to be proposed, and then sit for some reasonable number of days, to see if it elicits comment, approval or objections. Granted, some of the sites proposed here have sat for far too long but I also think that we should not have a proposal of a site, and then an addition of the site, within the same day, as happened recently with Things should sit for at least 4 to 5 days I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

old discussion from 2007. --Barras 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Making changes

The following discussion is closed.

Please propose changes here first, before making them, as there may be reasons not to make the change. We have had an increasing number of changes just made unilaterally, and I'm not sure that's a good approach. The Pennsylvania chapter of WMF wiki for example, may be handled a different way, we tend to handle official wikimedia sites differently if I recall. Also Shizao made a change without explaining what it is or why, again. I will be reverting these changes pending discussion. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion from 2007 should be archived. --Barras 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Are there any charts which show the proportion of wiki articles/editing/traffic and how they are linked to each other? Would this be too dominated by Wikipedia to be at all useful? With the number of articles being transwikied (well, at least in talk if not in practice) off of Wikipedia, this number should at least grow. 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Such a chart would be very interesting, but I suspect would require a lot of data collection to create. I'm not aware of one but would love to see it if it exists. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion from 2007, should be archived. --Barras 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages of interwiki links