Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2008-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed additions



Please add sil: as an alias for the current ISO639-3: ($1). [sil:] is a lot easier than [ISO639-3]. Thanks, SPQRobin 22:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This not being a wiki, exactly, how much is the current prefix used? It seems a reasonable request... more input from others? ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
We on incubator: (and also at Meta) use it a lot and a prefix is much easier than always copy the url or use the currect usless prefix. SPQRobin 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
One solution is to put the code [[ISO639-3:nld|ISO639-3:]](or whatever) in your customised edittool. Hillgentleman 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done a while ago, apparently. SPQRobin (inc!) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Wiki format: [[mario:]] or [[mariowiki:]] or something along those lines
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: [1]
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [2]
  • Reasons: An amazingly well organized independent wiki all about Mario and other related video game topics. I just came across this website tonight and am extremely impressed. The site seems to have been around since mid 2005, has lots of well formatted content, a very active user base, and the site is GFDL. -- Ned Scott 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - looks very impressive so I have added it as [[mariowiki:]]..--Cometstyles 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WAIT. There is no reason to rush. Please give time for others to comment. Hillgentleman 11:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
probably given more than enough time, no one has opposed yet, so i believe, it stays :) ...--Cometstyles 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Support retention but next time please give an appropriate period for discussion instead of adding right away. Just state your intent to add if you think it's warranted, and wait a bit. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Lar, no offence, but you're being ridiculous. Nearly 2 months is plenty of time. Majorly talk 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the two months during which no objections were raised... that's way more than enough (a week or two I think is plenty) for this ultimately to have been a good addition, I'm referring to the 13 minutes between the initial request and the apparent add. THAT'S what I would prefer to have went a bit longer. I agree that as of now, it's all good... but let's wait more than 13 minutes next time. Sorry if that was not clear. In general I just don't like to see these requests added right away. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I realise I added it just 13 minutes later, and that because while talking on IRC, I found out the interwiki database will not be updated in a month, so I didn't see anything wrong then though I won't be adding any more anytime soon :) ...--Cometstyles 12:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sverige

  • Wiki format: wmse:
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: [3]
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [4]
  • Reasons: This is the local Wikimedia chapter, Wikimedia Sverige. The prefix will be used on various Swedish Wikimedia projects and other projects as well.

//StefanB 06:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut proposals

I'd suggest following shortcuts:

  • [[spec:]] for wikispecies Yes check.svg Done by Lar
  • [[wmf:]] for foundation pages Yes check.svg Done by Lar
  • [[c:]] for commons X mark.svg Not done (potential conflicts)
  • [[i:]] for incubator X mark.svg Not done (potential conflicts)
  • [[t:]] for test wikipedia X mark.svg Not done (potential conflicts)

Danny B. 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconding. I'd proposed the [[c:]] shortcut previously. [5] [6] and think this proposal is more complete. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems good, but I'm afraid proposed c is conflicted with existing convention. In Wikia wikis c has another meaning. I'm not sure if it is their local convention or not, and also if it causes a problem (meta refers to Meta-Wiki on Wikimedia Wiki, but globally it isn't, but I heard no complaint ...). --Aphaia 07:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
c stands for Central Wikia. For example, if you were on a Wikia wiki, if you wanted to link to the YouTube wikia, you would have to use c:youtube:$1. Thunderhead 07:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
C actually stands for city. As in "Wikicities" which Wikia used to be called. On Wikia, [[w:]] links to the Central Wikia and [[w:c:]] links to a specific "city" (now called a wiki or a Wikia). We added the c redirect so that we don't have to add interwiki links to all of our wikis. Instead of listing, the shortcut can always be used. Angela 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add the wmf: link. Thunderhead 11:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We still need comment from others on some of the rest I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to this prefix and do not see any conflicts. Cbrown1023 talk 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No for i:, it would conflict with the local-shortct pages used on incubator (like incubator:I:A). Cbrown1023 talk 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To recap then? i: and c: seem to have issues? wmf: and spec: are apparently OK and t: is unknown? Is that where we stand? Or is it that c: is ok per Angela's explanation? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I STILL have no idea what we should do here. Anyone? ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the c: will break the wikia links, but it ought to be avoided for other reasons. It would break many articles and redirects on Wikipedia: w:Special:Prefixindex/c:. Generally, very short interwikis are likely to cause clashes with existing pages. c: is used a shortcut to mean category on the English Wikipedia. Similarly, t: is a shortcut for template there and would clash with the proposed shortcut to the test wiki and there are some articles starting with I:. See w:Special:Prefixindex/t: and w:Special:Prefixindex/i:. Angela 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to do spec: and wmf: but not c:, i:, or t: (which is too bad, I would have liked to have c: for commons the same way that m: works to get you to meta) unless someone says why that particular combination is not the right thing to do, and soon. I'm trying to see if we can't get some of these loose ends driven to conclusion. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slight modifications to the head of the section, so people know why we're doing and not doing these. I suspect c: will come up again soon, for instance. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2007-12#Commons (which crosslinks back to a prev version of here as well for completeness) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

spec: doesn't work yet. - LA @ 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


These interwikis should be set together at once.

Commenting on them as a whole, I think the names should be chosen to be as self explanatory and easy to infer as possible. Do we expect to ever change away from freenode? If not, then we ought to use freenode: rather than irc: for the main one. The other two I'm less sussed about as they seem less frequently referenced from wiki pages. I'm not sure I see a great deal of need to have direct user links though, can't users just give that as a URL? I agree with grouping these and trying to get to a consensus for all of them, and then doing all of them (that we decide need doing) ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Again commenting as a whole, we have some done, and some not. The initial request was to add all at once. One was. One sort of was? (I can't quite tell about Freenode:) Is that sufficient? Should the other one be "not done" or what? Thanks for any clarity!++Lar: t/c 22:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Freenode nick

  • Wiki format: [[freenodenick:]]
  • Interwiki link: irc://$1,isnick
  • Reason: Pretty selfexplanatory... (Users' nicks)

Danny B. 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. Cbrown1023 talk 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what this one does. Why would you want to join a channel named after someone's nick? Angela 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to Angela's suggestion on RC channels, this should be shortened to [[freenode:]] then.
@ Angela 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC): This is direct link to start the query with such user. Eg. clicking on [7] you'll open the query window with me ;-) (Of course, only if your browser is set to handle irc links, but that's same with both links above.)
Danny B. 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this should remain as freenodenick or ircnick, somehow mentioning that there is a nickname involved and not an actual channel. Cbrown1023 talk 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't work for me for some reason. Maybe because I'm using mIRC. It just opens the channel #Danny_B, not a PM with Danny_B. Angela 03:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Same with KVirc for me. Snowolf 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This only works with chatzilla. --Werdan7T @ 04:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Bastique, Hello. I presume that you added these two [8] to the interwiki map as a foundation officer. Since OTRS-wiki is not useful for most people, it fails an important criterion for inclusion, and it has been rejected previously. And we have provided alternative solutions to the people who requested it. Would you please provide justification for the addition? - Hillgentleman 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide me a link to the "alternative solutions" of which you speak. I'm not certain why "useful to most people" is a criterion, as the interwiki link will, in all likelihood, be used on some private Wikimedia wikis. I believe that useful to any substantial number of people is a worthwhile criterion; which it certainly will be. It will certainly be useful to the people who see and/or use it. Bastique demandez 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion here (Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2008-04#OTRS_Wiki ) may be helpful to review. Not sure about alternatives. If WMF official policy is to have this, that's fine, but please document the request on the talk page so it can be archived (including that you just went ahead and did it despite previous rejection because you feel there's a compelling reason) for tracking. Thanks. (I do wonder what is wrong with the long form link, or with using a template, if the link won't be useful in most places.... en:wp seems to get along fine with templates near as I can tell..) ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, sub-issue of this: I can't seem to make the link work. OTRSwiki:User:EVula shouldn't be coming up a red-link... EVula // talk // // 23:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The interwiki map hasn't been updated with the database for quite sometime, there are a couple of bugs for it... but the devs. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Bastique, The previous proposal was rejected because, in brief, the proposer could cite no more reason beyond personal convenience. After we have read his proposal, we told the proposer that a simpler solution is to use the class=plainlinks, and that we would be happy to construct a very simple template for his use. However, he did not get back to us. Hillgentleman 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There's at least one thing that doesn't work for that... templates don't work cross-wiki. Cbrown1023 talk 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, you'd need to make the template on the wiki you wanted to use it. This discussion should be happening on the Talk:Interwiki_map page, so that it is documented and that we don't have to have it over and over again, rather than here on someone's user page. Even if the user has, by fiat, as is Bastique's power, decided to do something that consensus was not to do, it still should be recorded there... ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the discussion didn't contain a substantial enough amount of people to constitute a consensus. But I don't have time to debate the merits or failures of it with you. It's certainly worth inclusion to no small number of people (over 200 active users of OTRS). It will certainly be used and save a lot of people a lot of time. But do as you will. Bastique demandez 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My major concern is that we document the additions so that we can see why things are done. It's rather typical that the discussions get only a small number of participants, so the evaluation tends to be on "does this make sense". The first time this was added it was done without any prior discussion at all. That tends to rub some of us the wrong way. Really, if something is at all useful, proposing it here is not that big a deal, the people that do participate here aren't ogres. At this point, since it's been brought here and documented, that seems sufficient to me. That I personally don't agree with the argument for it is less relevant, really. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the otrswiki: prefix will be just as useful to the same number of people as the otrs: prefix (which has turned out to be quite useful) over the Wikimedia sites. Bastique demandez 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I previously supported the proposal and I strongly support this move - standardisation and simplicity across projects are essential for the rare cases where an OTRS volunteer needs to do something on a foreign language project but where they are unable to find the correct template, or indeed, where their browser or client won't support the necessary encoding to use a template. A local template would make something nice and pretty, but this interwiki link would make something functional, which I would say is much more important. Nick 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing how it's at all likely that the OTRSWiki link will be useful on a lot of wikis. The OTRS link leads to a ticket. That's a fairly common thing to want to lead to. But leading to an internal discussion wiki? not seeing it. But no matter. If people say it's useful, that's fine, let it stand. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It could come in handy to link to suitable notes on a particular ticket, when referencing the relevant ticket, indeed, if it was easier to link to, there's more chance this would happen. I can certainly foresee at set of circumstances where it would be desirable to have a link to some detailed notes on the OTRSwiki, together with a link to the actual ticket, or set of tickets. Nick 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nick, even in that rare (by your own estimate) chance that you end up in an obscure wiki needing that external/internal link, that link is only useful to another OTRS-worker, and so we have a dichotomy: either 1. if there is no one with OTRS access on that particular langauge project, the link would be as good as useless; or 2. there is somebody with OTRS access there, and then that person could easily have imported the link-template <span class="plainlinks">{{{1|}}} </span> for her own use. Still, in the future, you point may become valid, but from the evidence of a cross-wiki link search (see below), its use is very limited. The wiki has yet to prove itself useful enough to be included. Hillgentleman 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note also that external links can be superior to internal-type links, as they can be located conveniently with special:linksearch. Hillgentleman 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That can also be a disadvantage, allowing users to find all the links to OTRS-wiki on a project is potentially problematic, we try to be discreet in dealing with problems, but allowing links to OTRS-wiki to be found through a normal linksearch could, just could lead to someone harassing OTRS volunteers by following them around, weighing into debates that don't concern them, or indeed, making educated guesses about the nature of the ticket and content on OTRS-wiki just from where each link is on the project. Nick 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears to me a far-fetched fear. If I want to follow otrs volunteers around, I would use the page OTRS instead. Since nobody but otrs volunteers can actually open the linked pages, it convey far less information than OTRS and user contributions. Hillgentleman 01:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we need a developer's opinion on whether otrs wiki merits inclusion, for whatever burden or instability we would put on the system if we allow such sites. It is nearly certain that every proposed interwiki link would be used and would also be strongly supported by whoever is going to it. This doesn't make the otrs-wiki more useful than other sites which have been rejected. I would be surprised if anybody who is experienced and trusted enough to become an otrs volunteer would find it difficult to type the extra few characters for an external link or constructing the new templates if that ever happens. And if you really want, I would volunteer the service of my bot to do that job for you - with my unified account. In the end, if the developers are happy and it would make a lot of people who find it very useful happy, I wouldn't want to spoil their fun.
  • P.S. Cross-wiki Link search gives, over 50 sites: [9] gives: en:1, de:6, fr:3, it:2, ru:1, ko:2. The majority are in the user: namespace, a few in the project: namespace but most tellingly none in any of the talk: namespaces. - so may we presume that most people want it simply to link to their own otrs userpages (and perhaps a few userful resources)? If that is the case, why would the user need this link beyond a few "home" wikis? All in all, I cannot see it as very useful. --Hillgentleman 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    This link search does not include various private wikis that would be able to use the cross-wiki link; for instance arbcom-wiki, board, internal, office--to name a few. The participants of those projects generally have access to the OTRS wiki as well. Cary Bass demandez 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    If the prefix O: was being asked for, I'd not be keen on that, but this prefix is not likely to pollute the namespace, and a case has been made for its usefulness so I've come around to not seeing the harm and favour its retention. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    Bastique, In that case can you provide some numbers from these private wikis? Hillgentleman 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    er.... isn't that a little overkill? Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Er... no. If it is useful, prove it. Hillgentleman 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there's no significant additional load beyond that if the link were a simple external link instead. From my (admittedly shallow) understanding, pagelinks, external links, etc... are simply sorted into the appropriate tables and linked to the page table in the database, Potentially, using a interwiki-map link instead of a external link would save a few bytes of traffic by shortening the amount of data sent, though this one comment certainly outweighs the entire lifetime of the otrs: link's savings. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually in favour of adding this interwiki just like I'm in favour of the [[OTRS:]] interwiki being used and actually the same amount of people will use both links, so I don't see why it is a problem, if we allow [[OTRS:]], then why not [[OTRSwiki:]] ?...--Cometstyles 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing otrs-wiki, not otrs:. The otrs-wiki has not proved itself useful to the pan-wikimedia community. Hillgentleman 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We have had several people now saying that they would find it useful, and giving an example of why. Since these people are among our hardest working volunteers, I'm now inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if the link is not likely to be useful to the pan-wikimedia community. Essentially the same set of people that can usefully follow an "otrs:" link can also follow "otrswiki:"... those that can't follow one cannot follow the other either, for the most part, so the arguments for having OTRS apply to both, I think. As I said, I've come around to this thinking, sorry it took me a while :) We're now arguing this point far more than we should, I think. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am happy also to give them the benefit of doubt, but they could more easily and more efficiently have dispelled the doubt by being a little more specific. Now I am not asking them to tell us secrets, but simply some numbers. Hillgentleman 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Lar, One may argue that, in the same way as public servants and lawmakers should the the first ones to (try their best to) follow the law, except in exceptional circumstances, so should the otrs volunteers, as foundation servants, try their best to follow the rules set up for everyone. We had better be explicit whether this one fulfills or fails the usual criteria for inclusion, and whether this is an exceptional case. All I have seen so far are people claiming that it is useful without proof. For hard working and experienced wikimedians, this should pose little difficulty. Hillgentleman 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've provided numerous and compelling statements above. It seems to me to be you who is assuming bad faith on my part. Cary Bass demandez 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bastique, You are way over the top and even illogical in accusing me of assuming bad faith. I have no interest in an opinion on your own self. I am simply asking for experienced wikimedians to give simple justifications: existence of current links to justify the inclusion to the map. Not some people giving vague pledge that it is a useful thing. I mean real actual existing links to the site. Hillgentleman 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are assuming bad faith as well. Can you just give it a rest like a few other "experienced wikimedians" noted you should (whether indirectly or directly)? Cbrown1023 talk 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Please. I am not even opposing the inclusion of otrs-wiki into the interwiki map, provided that we make it clear it is an exceptional case, for it is not clearly useful. All I have pointed out is the simple fact, that the otrs-wiki has not been demonstrated to be useful enough to be included in usual circumstancees. All I have asked is a little evidence, a little number. Is that assuming bad faith? Hillgentleman 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why some people opposes to add our own OTRS into our own interwikimap. While it can be and is used by the external, we use and manage the list primarily for our own use? And OTRS has volunteers members who are active on several - many wikis - over 20 or more, regarding the number of its info-xx (by lang) queues. Internal link with a four-letter head benefits those volunteers, including myself, who may be 100 people or more over and may reduce our workload. Why WMF shouldn't use its resources and facilities to benefit its own staff both volunteering and paid? The objection sounds me too rigoristic, unpractical and missing the reality how the project is managed. --Aphaia 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Aphaia, Vague pledges by some who claim that it may be useful "in rare circumstances" (in Nick's words) is not helpful. If you are only occasionally linking the site, the site does not belong to the interwiki-map. It is as simple as that. There are very few links from the top 50 wikipedias to it. And Bastique claimed that there are links from private wikis but he failed to provide numbers. The interwiki links is a mediawiki feature, with a particular purpose. The otrs-wiki is not useful even to the majority of wikimedians. If the otrs-wiki is an exception that should be included, so be it, but please make it clear that it is the case. Hillgentleman 23:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Folks, I have no more time to debate the merits and failures of it with you. Do as you will. Hillgentleman 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Note for archival purposes. I added | Wm2009 ||$1 per convention/history. Cbrown1023 talk 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why is this under proposed removals? Majorly (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia 'Stable' Toolserver

  • Wiki format: stable:
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: N/A
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [10]
  • Reasons: The stable toolserver will need to be linked to as more stable tools are migrated to it. — E talk 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend a different prefix. Nakon 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How is stable:? — E talk 07:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I support stable:. Soxred93 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Stable looks good. Laaknor 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Stable: sounds good. —Giggy 08:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed in request. — E talk 08:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Added "stable" Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we go with advisory:. (And it seems written up fine.) —Giggy 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
advisory: looks fine. — E talk 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Walter 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Czech Republic


Moved from Metapub
  • Wiki format: [[d:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: wikt:Special:Statistics
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [12] (also internal links under "wikt:")
  • Reasons: Linking to wiktionary is ugly, it requires ten characters of metadata [[wikt:|]] in order to make it work. While I don't feel that the length of the prefix is the sole factor, I do feel that links to Wiktionary are not used as often as they should be. There would also be an argument for using the t: prefix, however I feel this would be less clear to newcomers (having both would be the worst solution as there would be no consistency). Would anyone else support this move, are there any glaring problems with the suggestion, and do I just file a bugzilla request to get this to happen? Conrad.Irwin 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The four letter link always bugged me, T can be confused for the Template namespace, but the D prefix sounds like a good idea. MBisanz talk 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with 'd'. - TheDaveRoss 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I, too, like d:.—msh210 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, did I understand it correctly that You propose to quite the "wikt:" completely and just use "d:" now? Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't propose that we remove the wikt: prefix, that would cause a lot of hassle for everyone for precious little gain. I just think we should add the d: prefix and encourage people to use it. Conrad.Irwin 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification, I was worried to clean all the existing links then, imho adding d: under this premise is fine then, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the "ten characters" argument is largely bogus; six of those characters ([[:|]]) are going to be required no matter what the interwiki link is. EVula // talk // // 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Lies, damn lies, and statistics, still it would be a 30% improvement to have only 7 ;). Conrad.Irwin 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Touché. EVula // talk // // 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've always hated the whole "wikt" instead of a single letter code like the other wikis, this is a very smart alternative. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, this is a nice alternative, "wikt" is such an unpleasant sounding word... Majorly talk 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
+1. —d:User:Ruakh 01:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
+1 --Dan Polansky 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC), mainly a Wiktionary contributor
  • It took me ages to work out that "d" referred to "dictionary". That's probably not a good thing. (Unless I'm slow, which is possible.) I'd prefer "t" and I doubt that would have issues. Maybe "wt"? Giggy 06:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy with t, but d would be better. Apart from Wikipedia, nearly all the other projects use the first letter of the project name, minus the "wiki" (n=wikinews, b=wikibooks, s=wikisource etc). Since Wiktionary doesn't follow the normal "wiki + name" pattern, it could well be an exception. t is meaningless though. Majorly talk 14:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of my smartass comment above, I do think a single-letter interwiki for Wiktionary would be a good thing. Like Majorly pointed out, it'd be an exception to the standard system, but the name of the project is already unique in its scheme anyway. EVula // talk // // 16:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. As Wiktionary is in fact shorter form of Wikidictionary. It's more systematical. I actually wanted to propose it already more than year ago with other shortcuts (see the proposal above) but somebody told me it's not possible so I left it that time. I see I shouldn't have given it up... ;-)
Danny B. 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: This wouldn't allow URLs such as to work, would it? That would be really nice.—msh210 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would (allow that). EVula // talk // // 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While d is admittedly not quite as intuitive as b or n, I think that our name rather precludes anything quite so intuitive. d is consistent with other names, and makes a great deal of sense, in context of our name being a portmanteau of wiki-dictionary. I support this proposal. Atelaes (yet another d editor) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support D stands for dictionary, definition, define, and is reminiscent of Google's define: keyword. —Michael Z. 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support [[d:...]], oppose [[t:...]] as it could create conflict between the T: pseudospace for the Template: namespace. Happymelon 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donevvv 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Not yet working. I do now know what done means and whether there is any delay in some downstream process, but d:tree does not work yet. --Dan Polansky 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Done means that it has been included in the Interwiki map, but it takes some time before those changes get synchronized to the servers. --Erwin(85) 10:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


Motivation: There is already the interwiki prefix OTRS and this was used for linking to a specific ticket. But that does not work anymore. When interwiki "OTRS" was created it pointed to the Ticket ID and not the Ticket number, what is not the same. But it used to work to link to a ticket by ticket number somehow and I have only just now have discovered it actually points to Ticket ID and not Ticket number. Even if it can fixt so that the fall-back works again it will keep giving problems long term.

To have a clean way to link to a OTRS ticket by the OTRS ticket number I propose to add the prefix "OTRS#". For people who use OTRS makes that # sense because that symbol is listed at the top of every ticket before the ticket number. --Walter 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Great idea, many uses on Wikimedia possible. However, it would have to be something other than "OTRS#". I hoped that would work, but brion said that the pound sign won't work. How about "OTRS-ticket" like you have heading this section? Cbrown1023 talk 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To bad that "#" can not be. It is short and clean. I am not excited about "OTRS-ticket" but at least it may not be short but it is clear. It is a usable choice. But now I think about it, if whe think longterm, "OTRS" is a brand, the name of software used for the e-mails. That can change long term. It makes sense to consider not using "OTRS" but some name that is neutral of the software brand but refers to the function. I only have no inspiration now for a good one. "WMF-email" maybe? --Walter 21:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • we already have OTRS:123456, how would this be different ?...--Cometstyles 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Every e-mail send to the WMF email system gets a "ticket number"; that is a number that is placed in the subject line of the email and when you use the email system clearly above every email as a reference to that email. There is also the "ticket ID", a more internal number of the software used in the url's to point to a ticket. The prefix "OTRS" points to the "ticket ID" and not the "Ticket number". To compare it with an article; Ticket ID is the version number of a wikipedia-article. Ticket number is the title of an article. Both get you the information but one of both is more easy to use. --Walter 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[[WMF-email:]] doesn't sound so straight and self-explanatory, is there any reason for not having eg. [[otrsticketnum:]] or something in this way instead?
Danny B. 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See bold text of my responds above. --Walter 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[[ticket:]]?  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 12:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
That is good one. It is WMF-centrix. These are MediaWiki interwiki prefixes so also non-WMF projects use them. But most of the prefixes are already WMF-centrix so that does not need to be a blocker. --Walter 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok - more feedback is welcome but for now I go for "Ticket". I will wait now a bit before adding it to the list ...--Walter 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
after posting to the OTRS-en-list does not seem get any feedback I have put it on the list. --Walter 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Walter 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Crnogorska Enciklopedija (formerly Montenegrowiki)

  • Wiki format: [[CE:]], [[CGE:]], [[CGEncik:]] or [[Montenegrowiki:]]
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Reason: The Crnogorska Enciklopedija (Montenegrin Encyclopedia) is a well-developed wiki that deserves its own interwiki link with Wikimedia. It has ~1,300 articles, of which ~1000 are fully developed. The wiki has about 75 users with eight sysops and four bureaucrats. --Montenegro 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This one is not completely clear cut to me yet. 3473 total pages, 1259 articles 25.43 pages/editor, 2.58 edits per page 76 users, 8 admins, including 4 bureaucrats and one checkuser... fairly healthy, could be a bit bigger... but very respectable. Inclined to add it but would welcome additional views. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

any other views? ++Lar: t/c 10:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Where are you planning on using these links? Nakon 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no response. Nakon 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, but its Main Page isn't even protected from editing by unregistered users! Silliness! Other than that I cannot see why not. --Svip 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather not link. The site is just like Conservapedia, but on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Since NPOV is a key foundation issue, I don't think linking to a non NPOV site would be a good idea. Mønobi 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the above comments I think this one is questionable? --Herby talk thyme 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that NPOV is a requirement for linking to a wiki. I can name many current links that do not have an NPOV policy. In fact I'm not sure it's appropriate to make value judgements on content as long as it's not clearly hate speech or the like. What matters is whether it's likely that other wikis (WMF wikis AND others) would want to link to this one. 2M page views, 2000 articles, and 1000 users suggest this is big enough. I'd be inclined to link this. (I would be inclined to link conservopedia as well even though I abhor most of the views professed there) I will not do so, pending more comments though. ++Lar: t/c 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not a requirement and I see interwiki links up there are much less likely to be linked to than RW (eg. uncyclopedia). Icewedge 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, I don't see where this would be useful. Nakon 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What use will this link have on Wikimedia wikis? Nakon 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 131 external links in German WP. I think this project should get a interwiki in this map. -- 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how an interwiki link to this site would be useful. Nakon 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Nakon 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Guild Wars Wiki

I don't think adding this to the map will be worth it. I mean, it might minorly help one or two Wikipedia articles, but that's really it... giggy (:O) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Nakon 22:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Wiki format: Conservapedia:
  • Interwiki link:$1
  • Statistics: [15]
  • Cross-wiki Link search: [16]
  • Reasons: RationalWiki is already being proposed to be added which is the counterpart to Conservapedia, and it can be useful for political articles, it is one of the biggest wikis on the internet much bigger than most wikis which already have interwiki support --Joe1978 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what some of you here are getting so exercised about. As has already been pointed out, Conservapedia is a very large site and is growing every day. And further to that, some of its articles are more informative than are their counterparts in Wikipedia.
CubBC, your attitude strikes me as viewpoint discrimination, the very thing that Wikipedia would have people believe that they forbid. Besides, the last time I checked, Wikimedia is not the same as Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia users might not have a use for Interwiki table links to Conservapedia, doesn't mean that other wikis would not find such a use.--Temlakos 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Herbythyme, why should POV be an issue on the site that mainly discusses how to use MediaWiki software? And what is wrong with any site promoting a selling point? Wikipedia does it, after all. This is about giving people a choice. And are you prepared to state positively that every single project that calls itself an encyclopedia is, in fact, trustworthy? Could I not dispute that claim by providing one counterexample?
Finally, if you want convincing, then why not share all of your concerns, and the standards that you apply in deciding whether Conservapedia, for example, ought to have the same consideration that I see given, say, to EvoWiki.--Temlakos 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Because one of the fundamental principle of the Foundation (whose wiki this is) is NPOV maybe. Equally this is the discussion I am involved in not any others on this page currently --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
All right. But how do you go from NPOV to excluding all wikis that have a POV? And in fact, is that what you do? Or do you declare that some POVs are acceptable, but not others? And are you really going to remove every single wiki that is found to be pushing a POV? If so, then where do I go to direct my complaints? Shall I propose a bunch of removals, then?
You would better serve yourselves by allowing a variety of viewpoints and publishing a guide to critical writing that governs their use.--Temlakos 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Strange - I am beginning to wonder if you are here to ensure that we do not interlink this site. Your approach has certainly clarified my views. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I repudiate the above and protest your tone. And there's something that everyone else ought to know: what you do with the Interwiki map affects far more wikis than just those of the Wikimedia Foundation. Did you know that every time a new Wiki webmaster starts a new wiki, he gets his first Interwiki table from the Wikimedia foundation? I ought to know: whenever I run that installation script, to set up a version of my own wiki in another language, I get the then-current Interwiki map. I always wondered where it came from, and now I know--right here. Why, then, should "usefulness for Wikipedia" be the sole, or even the chief, criterion for Interwiki map inclusion? I maintain that you need to consider the favor you are doing for all those other wikis that every brand-new Wiki webmaster will automatically hear about whenever he runs the installation script.--Temlakos 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that your agenda here is actually to promote Conservapedia to all wikis set up using Mediawiki, not to propose an addition that will benefit Wikimedia Foundation projects? WjBscribe 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. And what's wrong with that? What is wrong with ensuring that Conservapedia gets a treatment equal to that of EvoWiki, which also has a POV to push? And about those "previous disputes": frankly, those "disputes" go to show viewpoint discrimination within Wikipedia. Now if you want to stand by that, fine. But may I ask that you stop calling your policy NPOV when it isn't any longer?--Temlakos 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support if there is a interwiki link to EvoWiki, which POV pushes then I see nothing wrong with a interwiki link to Conservapedia --PhilK 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Until this site (I can't even type the name!!) allows crosslinks on their site to wikipedia, I will oppose it being added to the Interwiki map. As I think about it, I feel this is the first thing in my life I can feel will be permanent and perpetual!
Now, saying that, I would like to add that I feel this is a subversive attempt at getting around the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia. Joe1978 has spent his day in an edit war with other wikipedians trying to add External Links to this regressive thinking site. He attempted to add links to Abortion, Atheism], Evolution, Homosexuality, Intelligent design, and Jesus‎. Yet, they are so afraid of edits to their pages they have locked many; you have to submit text for inclusion which they will decide if it will be included.
As we should not let these attacks be made on Truth, Reason and Intelligence, we better prepare for more attacks from the extreme right. The Moral Minority will not stop until we have all our schools changed into Christian madrasas, Gays locked up in Guantánamo, and sex on Saturdays through a hole in a sheet! --CubBC 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet see [17], also I do not agree with the site myself on many things for example I believe in evolution and global warming, yet I was only adding links to the conservapedia site when I thought a link to it made sense -- 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Adding this site could be a somewhat touchy issue (see the above comments, for instance) which could do with some wider discussion, I'd say. Personally, I don't see a need to add it, but others may disagree (and are entitled to). giggy (:O) 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To make it clearer, I oppose. giggy (:O) 02:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • POV would certainly be an issue here. I find the line "The trustworthy encyclopedia" somewhat worrying too - there seems an implication that other encyclopedias are not. I would need some convincing on this one --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Given what I am seeing here I would oppose interlinking to this site quite strongly. The views here make it clear that we are concerned with NPOV & this site is not. Equally A. B.'s point is well made. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Herbythyme that Conservapedia's POV is a problem given that NPOV is a Wikimedia cornerstone. I'm also not convinced there is a great practical need to link this site from Wikimedia projects in any great volume. For instance, I don't think it's an appropriate link to add to article as its user-edited status raises reliability issues (same reason wikipedia articles are not used as sources for other wikipedia articles), nevermind POV problems. WjBscribe 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- we shouldn't interwiki link to Conservapedia OR Liberalapedia OR Radicalapedia OR Flatearthapedia. If we already have some interwiki links to this sort of POV site, liberal or conservative, they should probably be re-discussed here (but please don't pick a fight to make a point). Furthermore, it's hard to track and control interwiki links. If we already have disputes over external links to a domain's site, we should never add them to the interwiki map. --A. B. (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. That's pretty kinky about the hole in the sheet. --A. B. (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate, POV or NPOV, previous disputes over your external links consitute a deal-breaker for interwiki linking. These philosophical discussions are getting us nowhere. The answer is "No" based on spam concerns. --A. B. (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't add it. We didn't add RationalWiki (and we shouldn't of added that one either). We should focus on linking to other wikis that have a special niche, like legos (^_^) or guns or farming, not ones with various POVs. Monobi (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Monobi, EvoWiki has a POV and it was added so remove it or add conservapedia also to be consistent -- 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I said we should not add Conservapedia and remove EvoWiki :-). Monobi (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I put the comment in before noticing that you put in a section called remove EvoWiki -- 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep EvoWiki and don't accept this garbage. Andre (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Conservapedia spam history:
Selected articles linking to en:Conservapedia:
--A. B. (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With any doubt sufficient views have been expressed for me to close as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 07:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


To what of these 3 url's must it point? Or what is the best one, most stable? --Walter 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a Wiki with 151 pages and 42 registered users a bit small? Additionally the statistics shown about 500 klicks over the last two months.\

X mark.svg Not done per Walter and others, no reply. Daniel (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Walter, Sorry for the delay. We did some further work in the meantime and have a growing audience as editor / cosntibutor list. Our current / new central Interwiki URL/Link is$1 As we run it as a strictly non-commercial project we are living from our users / contributors work at all. May be we are now ready to get into Interwiki list. We have several WP editors now within the project and want to generate more interlinks now and in the near future between the projects. You may take a current look into our statistics etc. Many thanks in advance and best regards, --Nielsd 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support if the indeed like to be included. I find a confirmation from a sysop is needed. If done so I see no problem including that wiki. The interwiki-map is not wikipedia, NPOV or POV is not relevant. It is a technical way to make linking between MediaWiki-sites more easy and nothing else. --Walter 20:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- this site has been a source of controversy on en.wikipedia. External links can be searched using en:Special:LinkSearch however interwiki links cannot. Given the controversy, we need the additional transparency of external links. Note that I am not saying this is a bad site or that it has been spammed, just that we need transparency. --A. B. (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per WJBscribe. The precedent set by consensus not to include Conservapedia was and is correct, and applies here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per consensus above. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Some rem. requests (2/14/07)

I am only going to start the list in case everyone thinks I am wrong and wasting my time. The following are a selection of sites which avoid nofollow via interwiki links but do not seem to have any greater merit than many other links say at en:User:BozMo/whitelist. They mainly have wikis but no special merit and are often linked to commercial sites, including online open edit wiki manuals. They shouldn't have many links, most don't qualify as reliable sources. I personally would delete them. Views? --AndrewCates 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AboutCCC   <- was removed by .anaconda(++Lar: t/c 03:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
arXiv (no wiki AFAICT)
BlackTexts (commercial consultancy)
Boxrec (moribund) 
You risk breaking a bunch of links on a wiki using this software, what is the advantage of removal? Eagle 101 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply (been unexpectedly in hospital). I guess its an issue of principle/justice: which links should have interwiki links, as opposed to templates on the wikis which use them? Some wikis (like Centiare) are blatant SEO spam, some are softer but the vast majority are no better than discussion forums in terms of WP:EL and I don't see why a commercial consultancy should bypass "nofollow" just by having a wiki on their website, when legit academic sites which we lean on heavily don't? We may break some links but I don't think many will be good links. --AndrewCates 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AndrewCates on this, especially with regard to the latest brouhaha over Wikia. We should re-rationalize this entire list and policy. For example, why do we have interwiki links for CNDB which describes itself as "the most comprehensive reference for celebrity nudity on the Internet. This site has reviews of over 12,000 nude scenes - updated daily. All reviews of nude scenes are written by celeb skin devotees just like you." This list has gone awry. -- fuzheado 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that even considering the issue is detrimental to the projects.

Our responsibility as a top-10 website is to the readers. Not to a third party (SEO spammers) trying to score points with a fourth party (Google).

People whose interest in Wikipedia is page rank are in no way, shape or form our constituency. Because their interest is, fundamentally, spamming.

The interwiki map is for the convenience of the projects. Not for the SEO spammers. I suggest that altering anything about the project for the benefit of spammers, even noisy ones, is ill-considered - David Gerard 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually - what would be a good reason to remove the interwikis - if they're not being used on the projects and there aren't http:// links to them on the projects either. It's most annoying we don't have all-of-Wikimedia "what links here" - David Gerard 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, for the curious, links to the brouhaha: [21] and [22]
Further, I propose to adapt the practice (if not the policy) for this list to the disadvantage of spammers. People should probably be more aware that
  • being in the interwiki map is a valuable asset, something people would pay for.
  • being in the interwiki map de-factor expresses some type of endorsement: interwiki-links are not highlighted with an extra icon, like "normal" external links are, and they are less likely to be double-checked by editors.
  • an interwiki-prefix bypasses the policies on external links
So I propose to be more restrictive in who gets on, and more transparent about the process and policy. Maybe this should be made a per-wiki process - going-ons on meta are pretty obscure to people (even admins) in many projects.
Another idea would be to distinguish between "internal" (wmf projects) and "external" interwiki-links. The iw_local flag already exists, it could be (ab)used for this. "external" interwiki-links could be treated just like "normal" external links - shown the same way, and flagged with nofollow.
Oh, and if links to Wikia should be flagged with nofollow or not... I really don't care. But we should just be aware that being in added to wikipedia's interwiki-map is a massive reward given by the community to the website in question, if we like it or not. Interwiki-prefixes used to be just a convenience. Due to wikipedia's popularity (and thus google rank), it's much more now. -- Duesentrieb 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus points to any site that's free content - David Gerard 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a tighter and more transparent process. I confess that I myself have basically just used my own judgement about which sites to list, evaluating the arguments and making the edits, without any formal process. So what should be done? ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing discussion in a new section, below: #Inclusion criteria clarification? - David Gerard 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: someone needs to sort out which of the above proposed removals should be done, should not be done, was done, wasn't done, etc.!!!! ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, out of date. Nakon 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


This prefix is redundant to s:he:$1. I have no idea why it was added. It is the only prefix to a non-English Wikimedia wiki. --Meno25 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that this should probably be removed. giggy (:O) 09:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, Nakon 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of EvoWiki

I propose we remove the EvoWiki$1 from the interwiki map. Like I said above, we should be linking to sites with various niches, not various POVs. Monobi (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This site pushes the POV of evolutionism, or more accurately methodological naturalism. That paradigm is now a subject of increasing scholarly debate. As such it can no longer be considered settled science, and in line with what I am given to understand will be the new meaning of NPOV on this and other Wikimedia Foundation sites, I contend that EvoWiki stands in violation.--Temlakos 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If Conservapedia is not allowed to be interwiki linked for alleged POV pushing the same goes for EvoWiki --PhilK

This is silly. {{notdone}} -- Andre (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion does not overrule others. Just because 2 socks have posted here does not mean it's silly. Monobi (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally I would be against removal of this one. It would be good to see other views --Herby talk thyme 07:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    And it would not be good to see the views of Conservapedia? Here you close discussion of Conservapedia on POV grounds, and then explicitly plump for EvoWiki on the grounds of allowing access to other POV's? That, sir, is hypocritical.--Temlakos 10:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    As I have already said your approach here is rather contentious. I specifically stated It would be good to see other views, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's precisely the point. "It would be good to see other views"—but not views that challenge your notions of what is "scientific" and what is "politically correct." Therefore, you reject Conservapedia, ostensibly on POV grounds, but retain EvoWiki, on the grounds of freedom of expression. That is a double standard. That is, unless you meant that "it would be good to see other views of the question of whether EvoWiki deserves removal." You did not make that clear.--Temlakos 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mmm, this is actually quite a difficult question. The first two lines of its main page state that it is "pro-evolution" and "pro-science" - is that an NPOV violation? Honestly, I'm not sure. It is as I understand it a fairly commonly accepted principle that reliable sources should be used in preference to unreliable ones and that fringe theories should be presented with less weight than mainstream ones. Is "pro-science" a POV? Well, clearly it is a point of view but is it a non-neutral one or a reflection of sourcing standards? Does our insistence on a certain level of sourcing make much of the content of WMF projects inherently "pro-science"? Having this link doesn't bother me much, but I think it is worth having a discussion to make sure we aren't applying a double standard. In a way it may not be best to make this determination from meta - if many pages are containing links to this website, then it would seem that editors on the ground have found it an acceptable and useful link. Is it possible to find out how widely linked to EvoWiki is, and from what sorts of pages? WjBscribe 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with the above is that the science of origins is no longer the settled issue that you might have thought it was. The paradigm of "evolution" (read "methodological naturalism") is running into problem after problem with observations that it cannot predict—while the opposite paradigm of creationism is now building models that can predict observations. Quite often these models out-predict the naturalistic models. Hence my contention that a site like EvoWiki is trying to impose one POV upon the rest of society, and that POV is definitely non-neutral.--Temlakos 12:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • NPOV does not apply to the interwiki map (NPOV is, after all, rare outside of the Wikimedia bubble). I think EvoWiki is fine and yet Conservapedia is not can be seen as confirmation that our problem is not with the POV per se of a target wiki, but instead, the intent — in this case, the latter is for advocacy, which is inappropriate, but the former is for collaborative co-ordination and consideration, which is absolutely fine). James F. (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sounds right to me. X mark.svg Not done Andre (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Updates



WikiFur:$1 ->$1

WikiFur is moving to new hosting, which will use its top-level domain name with language-specific subdomains. Until the move is complete, the new domain will redirect to its current location, so it can be used straight away. GreenReaper 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Andre (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[[wmf:]] should lead to$1 instead of current$1

Danny B. 11:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Nakon 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[[wikinfo:]] should lead to$1 instead of current$1

Soxred93 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is already the case in Interwiki map, so we'll just have to wait until the interwiki's are updated. --Erwin(85) 08:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, for archiving. Nakon 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Various dead link updates

A bit of research on various of the dead links gives these suggestions:

TimR 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done all except Excel, which doesn't seem to be in the list. Andre (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


With the toolserver having been moved from to, shouldn't the tool: IW link be updated to reflect this change? OverlordQ 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. However, this list is rarely updated nowadays. Majorly talk 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Kate has already update it himself a while ago...--Cometstyles 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, for archiving. Nakon 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


I updated the URL to be$1 --Meno25 09:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Please update for$1 Thanks, Yann 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. --Erwin(85) 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Please update$1 for$1. —Guy Peters 09:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - note that it can take months before it comes live. --Walter 10:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)