Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2009-04

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Proposed additions

MediaWiki Manual

The following discussion is closed.
  • Wiki format: [[mwman:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$1
  • Statistics: (none)
  • Cross-wiki Link search:
  • Reasons: Because we have the mw: prefix for MediaWiki pages, so why not have a shortcut for linking to MW's manual pages to make it easier to help fellow wiki users/admins back on our own wikis? Tons of useful pages there, one for each of the configuration variables, many tutorial-type pages, etc. (Wasn't sure what to put in the link search field above, sorry.) --74.235.76.227 18:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not just use mw:Manual: ? (ex: mw:Manual:Contents). Kylu 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - no more cruft please. X mark.svg Not done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Google

The following discussion is closed.

The Google interwiki prefixes need to be removed as Google is not a wiki. As far as I'm concerned, it may be confusing. If it is there for convenience, then we can use a template to link to Google. -- IRP 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how it's confusing, but I think the Google prefix would do well to stay as it's fairly handy (albeit no, it isn't a wiki). EVula // talk // // 02:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
These shortcuts are used for various sites that aren't wikis - for example as links to useful tools. Is there any reason (other than that it is called the interwiki map) why we should restrict entries to wikis only? WJBscribe (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Because up top, in the criteria for inclusion↑↑, criterion #4 is "be a wiki". If it is there to be handy and it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, then we can create a template for that purpose instead. That's the purpose templates serve. Even if you don't agree, do you see the point that I'm trying to convey? Do you think I'm missing something? -- IRP 01:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: There may already be plenty of links to Google and the other non-wikis. After removing them, please create a bot to automatically fix the broken links by changing them to the appropriate external template. -- IRP 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
For example: Google links can use the {{Google}} template. -- IRP 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a wee bit before the aforementioned #4: "As a guide, sites considered for inclusion should probably" (emphasis mine). This isn't a policy. EVula // talk // // 03:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As EVula says, it's stated more as a "guideline" than a "rule". Even if it was a rule, I'd advocate changing the rule before removing links to google, toolserver tools etc. We shouldn't have policy just for the sake of it, which is why I asked if there was a good reason to exclude non-wikis from the list. WJBscribe (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a request to the Wikimedia Forum to see if there will be consensus for the removal. -- IRP 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As the only reason you've presented is "it isn't a wiki," I don't see why forum shopping would garner consensus. EVula // talk // // 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see consensus at all and I agree with EVula/WJBscribe. Cbrown1023 talk 22:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with using a template to link to it instead? -- IRP 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with using an interwiki prefix? :) EVula // talk // // 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Using the interwiki prefix makes the link look internal or interwiki, which it is not. -- IRP 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion is at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Jumbled up mess of link types. -- IRP 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You're seeing a problem where nobody else is. Perhaps you should just accept that and move on, rather than forum shop. Sorry. EVula // talk // // 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, some users at that discussion on Wikipedia do see the problem. Apparently you just jumped straight to the conclusion that I'm the only one thinking this without reading the discussion there. You should see Hans Adler's post. Here is a link directly to it (please be sure to read the entire post). -- IRP 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you or enwiki have a problem with this (cue eye roll), then don't use interwiki links to Google. This is X mark.svg Not done.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for updates

Troubleshooting