Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2012-11

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Billinghurst in topic Proposed removals

Proposed additions

Wikimedia Macedonia

wmmk: seems like the logical link to me. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done [1]. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


I think it is reasonable to add this site per recent events:

WikiPrefix1: wvode


WikiPrefix2: wvoit


Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And should be a sister project soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that reason to wait? Especially since the name might change. LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, in fact it's a reason not to wait, because it can be updated to point to a different link, whereas the www.wikivoyage will be outdated. Anyway, I need this for my bot. Please add this as soon as possible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The name and domain are certain now too: --Peter Talk 04:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that while we may add this site to the list right now, it needs a dev to manually update the interwiki caché to work. Having said that, I do not object to their addittion to this list. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We need the other language versions as well. Can we do just "wv" for Wikivoyage English, by far the largest, and is there a good reason for "vwo" instead of just "vw" as the prefix? So wvode -> wvde, wvoit -> wvit, plus:

WikiPrefix3: wv; wikivoyage; voyage


WikiPrefix4: wvnl


WikiPrefix5: wvfr


WikiPrefix6: wvsv


WikiPrefix7: wvru


All Wikivoyages except German and Italian are hosted at, so I changed those links. Also, the Swedish Wikivoyage has language code "sv" not "se". Would agree that the English version is linked to by "wv", along with "wikivoyage" and "voyage". Now that Wikivoyage has just moved to WMF servers, I see no reason not to add the above interwiki-links to complement wvde and wvit. JamesA (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Any reason for all of these multiple links under different languages? The usual process is to create one link to each sibling, then within that project interwiki links exist with the 'local' bit set to get from one language to another, so wiktionary:fr:bonjour goes from here to en.wiktionary then right back out from there to fr.wiktionary without creating wikt-fr: as yet another interwiki table entry. K7L (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, brilliant. That's a much better solution, and then "wv" alone will suffice quite nicely. Jpatokal (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like most of the sibling projects have a long and short prefix, for instance w: and wikipedia:. w:Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Linking between projects is the current list of siblings. To be consistent with this, perhaps wv: and wikivoyage:$1 would do? K7L (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
WV is not acceptable, it conflicts with the much older Wikiversity, which has been referred to as wv regularly, even tho it does not have such interwiki. It would generate confusion and be unfair to our other sister project. Snowolf How can I help? 05:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I really dislike the suggested use of WV: nomenclature, the v: and wv has been associated with wikiversity for an extended period. Couldn't we look to use g:, y: or some other. Look at Interwiki.php for where they are defined. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd only suggested wv: because v: is already taken by wikiversity: - to suggest another two-letter combination is likely to conflict with languages, so perhaps voy: and wikivoyage: as g: seems rather meaningless? K7L (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

wikivoyage Done; voy done by sysadmins (like wikt); additional language-specific interwikis Not done, we don't use those for any wiki. --Nemo 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. Has wvode and wvoit been removed, as it seems they were added a week or so ago? JamesA (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. They might have been live for a couple days (I don't know exactly when the interwiki map was synced), so I thought better to remove them immediately so that people don't start using them. They're still live in this moment. --Nemo 09:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually really like voy:, it's effective and doesn't have the issue with wv conflicting with wikiversity. Snowolf How can I help? 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


The beta site for Wikidata is now up, so I propose to add "wikidata" to the interwiki map. Also for simplicity I would propose to add either the two letter prefix "wd" or simply "d". This site will get heavy traffic from Wikipedia in short time (ie. days). — Jeblad 10:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Currently it should be HTTP-only. What will be the language scheme, alias how will language interwikis work and where should the full name point to?
Unlike the former, the latter request is not valid, those interwikis are relative to the wiki where you are (see #Shorthands for full prefixes?). --Nemo 11:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The URI scheme is on-going work, but for now the "language" is our "shortsite" ("en" for "enwiki") and is used for item lookup
This would then make it possible to write something like [[d:en:Berlin]] to follow the sitelink for English Wikipedia into the correct item on Wikidata.
This can be changed as it makes an implicit interpretation of the prefix which may not hold in the future. For now this works, but it could be changed to our site id
We are using ULS to give the user the correct language, so even if he writes something like he can get the page in English. A similar url with the site id would be For now we use the short form as if it is a language prefix.
The full name should point to$1, with no additional magic I think. There will be additional rewrite rules, but we leave this as is for now.
The full name would then make it possible to write something like [[wikidata:Q1234]] to link to a specific item on Wikidata without using the sitelinks for lookup. It is assumed that lookup with sitelinks is easier for the users.
The URI spec is at Wikidata/Notes/URI_scheme. — Jeblad 11:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, page says "Wikimedia Foundation projects shouldn't be added here, since they are added automatically." — Jeblad 14:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No, this interwiki link can be added, as it is a special wiki like --Hydriz (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Do not add Wikidata here; see bugzilla:41730. This, that and the other (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done per bugzilla:41730 and gerrit:31887 (merged). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote on the bug, this is actually the correct place to ask for a full name interwiki: in fact that change didn't add it; correct me if I'm wrong. --Nemo 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
For now, we have all language subdomains redirecting to and I suggest "d" or "wd" directing to is good.
Making the subdomains work correctly won't happen immediately as it requires a bit of tweaking to the scripts that handle routing requests to all the correct wikipedia and wikimedia sites. They all assume a language (e.g. an actual separate wiki) and family. Even when we do get subdomains working, it's easy for the main namespace (data items) to set it to a particular language. It's not so straightforward to do that with other namespaces yet. When it is working, I can imagine d:de:blahblahblah working for language specific interwikis. Aude (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We can then make wikidata: point to //$1 for now if we agree. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Please create [[Wikidata:, linking from betawikiversity: is a crime because the [[d:]] gives trouble. Romaine (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Done - wikidata: added: [2] -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


Located at$1, being able to link there with rbe:, or alternatively with tzmwiki:, would be fantastic. The wiki is young and doesn't have many pages yet, but will continue to grow very quickly in the next few weeks. Rbe10k (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done This seems premature both in terms of desirability and demonstrated relevance. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia, RationalWiki and A Storehouse of Knowledge

cp: rw: storehouse:

This should be OK for everyone. T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done nothing exists to update. If required to be added, please add to the above section with full rationale. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Moved. I recommend spelling the names out, conservapedia: and rationalwiki: Leucosticte (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In what situations would we need to link to these wikis? Conservapedia in particular is highly unreliable and biased. Also, "rw" is the language code for Kinyarwanda. LtPowers (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: basically no links from any wiki's main namespace (there are from a handful to a few hundreds on's talks, but those are not really relevant). Please reopen if there's some rationale of usage. And yes, of course only Conservapedia and RationalWiki would be acceptable prefixes. --Nemo 14:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Wikitravel (1)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Given the current legal imbroglio between WMF and Internet Brands, it seems a bit perverse to maintain an interwiki prefix for one of their properties ... particularly one that a supermajority of active editors have abandoned to the spambots and touts. LtPowers (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you propose temporarily removing all the links until a replacement is ready, or something else? JamesA (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree we should link to a version hosted by a non commercial entity as soon as that becomes available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Different gig at this point of time. The wiki exists, and the links are legitimate. The communities always determine the links from their articles, all that is provided here is a "shortcut" to provide easier linking where there is a standard path url. I don't see that there is anything here to do, the links are all local to the wikis. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) .
Agreed; this is not the place for discussing what will become of the links. (en:Template talk:Wikitravel is one place for such discussion.) This is about the interwiki prefix, which has fallen into question before due to IB's editing on Wikipedia. After recent events, it's clear Wikitravel is no longer a like-minded project. LtPowers (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel is a free, live and active wiki with well over 250,000 daily visitors, and hundreds of contributors writing and curating the site on a constant basis. It is far and away, and by all reasonable measures, the premier travel wiki in the world. Disabling its interwiki prefix would be completely inappropriate and counter to Wikimedia's mission. The proposal to disable Wikitravel's interwiki prefix is being made by a tiny cadre of the fiercest proponents and organizers of a competing travel site. It is being attempted not to benefit the Wikimedia community, nor the general public, but solely out of a desire to harm the vibrant Wikitravel community and host, and to promote the cadre’s agenda and elevate their own website in Wikitravel's place. There are no reasonable grounds, nor precedent, upon which to fulfill this demand.--IBobi talk email 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As the company the you represent is currently suing a number of Wikipedians your comments here are inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that's policy on Wikipedia. Assuming it also applies here, IBobi may not, in any way, shape, or form, edit Wikimedia until the lawsuit is resolved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that it applies here, having not seen such a policy at meta. Additionally, note that meta admins have implicitly indicated that his contributions here are welcome in their responses to his past comments. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That was prior to the lawsuits, though. --Peter Talk 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Prior and after. But I believe what this cadre is actually complaining about is the substance of the objection --to which they refuse to respond-- to their proposal to remove the interwiki prefix from an active and long-established wiki that they would like to supplant with their own creation, founded wholly on content duplicated from the existing one. Which of course makes no sense for anyone, except their small cadre that hopes it can bully this proposal through using the same shady, strongarm tactics they used on their RFC. Regardless, it's a moot point as there appears to be no such policy on Meta, even if it would apply to this particular case, which it would not. --IBobi talk email 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The facts will speak for themselves to those who bother to look them up, and on the internet that is not difficult. I don't think it will make any difference in the long run whether the interwiki prefix is retained or not. The sites will live or die on their own merits, and the communities will go where they want to, on the merits of the host, or according to personal preference or whim. Wikimedia Foundation project editors will link as their local policies and article needs require. If IB gets its act together and put in the effort they didn't think necessary before, they may salvage WT, if not, it will die, or stagger along as a spam riddled and censored wreckage. Either way, the content of the travel guide was explicitly intended for free duplication by anyone who wants to do so, and the people who are setting up the new site wish to do so, and produced a very significant amount of that content. IB on the other hand, has produced virtually no content. It is possible that backlash resulting from the heavy handed censorship by IB of the attempts by members of the contributor community to notify other editors of the proposed migration will be a major factor in whether editors stay or leave when they find out, and they will find out. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Odds are, WT is a trademark and we do not have permission to use it. As such, any mention of the name should be removed by automated means, except in the article on that one specific topic. The interwiki should also be removed, as a violation of our no legal threats policy if nothing else. Have a robot search-and-replace this, so that the links neither mention WT by name nor point there. We don't provide interwiki links to other sites diametrically opposed to WP (for instance, "Wikipedia review"-type boards) so why is this one any different? An interwiki map entry is a privilege, not a right - particularly if it is abused to link to for-profit commercial sites as a means to circumvent "rel=nofollow" on external links. K7L (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Trademarks prevent us from using such in our marketing, and representation, it doesn't stop us from using it. The WT i/w is an operational issue, not a philosophical matter, and therefore should remain until there is no longer a need, and that is clearly up to the individual wikis. I believe that at this point of time, we can and should mark this Not done while the shortcut is in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of philosophical issues, keeping the links is against w:WP:NLT so they must be removed. JamesA (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
enWP's policies are informative to the remainder of the wikis, not normative. The link should remain until it is no longer needed, and that is up to the policies of the wikis. If you have concerns about WT links on enWP then discuss it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether enWP's policies mean anything on some other wiki isn't the point... as this table entry is being used as a tool (by over 3000 instances of en:template:wikitravel) to circumvent en:WP:NLT on en:. NLT is policy there and the advertising of a company suing or threatening to sue our contributors violates this policy. I'd be more than willing to put the problematic template on en: through en:WP:TFD or en:WP:RM first if it's necessary to remap any links (presumably to WV or a blank placeholder until WV is back up) before killing this entry. I've already nominated a pair of rarely-used, related WT advertising templates on en:'s TfD. A link in an interwiki table here which serves primarily as a tool to contravene en:'s policies on en: (whether to bypass en:WP:NLT, to evade "rel=nofollow" on spammed links to external commercial sites, or to evade the spam blacklist if this ends up there) is not okay. There's also the problem that WT itself is becoming a mess of spam now that the admins that used to take out the garbage are now busy with en:Wikivoyage. Should I open the en:WP:TFD case for en:template:wikitravel and request en:WP:SPAM blacklist entries for the IB-owned properties now, or is this something for WMF general counsel to decide? K7L (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with sDrewth, there's no policy or precedent to support this. Not done is the proper resolution.
Also, you might want to actually take a peek at Wikitravel before deciding to jump on the "it's spammy now" bandwagon; not only is it not spammy *now*, it's less spammy than it has been in years. Wikitravel is serving over 250,000 travelers a day, and will continue to do so.--IBobi talk email 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC) also serves some huge number of visitors, as a mirror of Wikipedia content. We don't have a link to its mirror of Wikipedia in this table. And yes, I have looked at the WT site... most of the primary contributors have left, leaving mostly spambots and IB staff. It looks like the fate of the templates using the interwiki prefix will need to be decided first, but once that happens it's a question of when (not if) links to any site duplicating a WMF project are removed. No point linking externally to content available locally. K7L (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me... who is the mirror site of whom, again? ;) --IBobi talk email 21:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is a fork of Wikitravel, not a mirror. sumone10154(talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through the various languages and most use external links (not interwikis) in {{wikitravel}} or {{wikitravelpar}} templates so as to not give the appearance that WT is a Wikimedia sibling. I've requested the change (successfully) on en: (pt: and fr: already had the proper external link format). Japan has already deleted their version of this template long ago (and repeatedly, with the first deletions in the same era as the community backlash against the sale of the site to IB, in 2006); the same is true of Spanish. This just leaves a few minor instances in smaller wikis (ro: being the largest, followed by ka: and ur:) which will need to be fixed before this entry can finally be pulled from the interwiki: table. I presume the next step is to find someone who speaks those languages and make the appropriate "embassy" enquiries. K7L (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done Your endeavours for wikitravel vs. wikivoyage are irrelevant for this page, nor your comparisons, et., the respective interwikis are not related. This page does not discriminate and maybe not even care. Wikis manage their policies for where they can link, it is not a universal approach through meta. If you wish to consider a global discussion, then that is appropriate through a Request for comment, but none would bind a community to follow the result of that discussion. Can we move on? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias either no longer or never have used the interwiki prefix for Wikitravel. Long before IB and WMF got into legal fights, there was concern over IB spamming Wikipedia with COI links and Wikitravel was very nearly removed from the prefix list. Now that there's an even better reason to remove WT, we're getting pushback? Pray tell, what would we need to do and/or show you to convince you that WT no longer needs to be on the prefix list? LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Convince each local Wikimedia project to no longer use it. Now I'm hat'ting this discussion. Snowolf How can I help? 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new template {{w:template:wikivoyage}} on en: and nominated {{w:template:wikitravel}} and {{w:template:wikitravelpar}} for deletion, requesting that a 'bot be used to replace the old template (wikitravel:) with the new one (voy:). The old template has also been changed to use an external link instead of an interwiki link (so as to give rel="nofollow" and the icon indicating an external site). All of this needs to be done again for every other language that has a 'wikitravel' or 'wikitravelpar' template, however. Only once all of those links have finally been killed can the wikitravel: interwiki prefix be re-nominated here for deletion. (These will die, the only questions are when and in which sequence.) It would be best to avoid *anything* (interwiki or template) which is named WT but actually points to WV, for trademark reasons... hence the need to search, replace and delete anything that even so much as mentions WT. It does make for a longer process, but it's the only viable solution. K7L (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See continued discussion #Wikitravelbillinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


A commercial site owned by Internet Brands. It is no longer a wiki as editing has been disabled. Uploading images and creating articles is still enabled, but most of those contributions are spam. sumone10154(talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the IB links should be pulled and not reinstated given the current WP:NLT situation with this firm. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise for-profit businesses of this nature. K7L (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You're on Wikimedia's Meta-Wiki, not on the English Wikipedia, and continuing to link to some local policy is hardly convincing or useful. Also, I'd like to note that we maintain interwikis to plenty of for-profit businesses and our interwikis do not constitute an endorsement of their business practices or whatever. Guys, this is silly. Interwiki exist to serve the local communities, as long as the local communities use them, there's no reason for us to remove them. Snowolf How can I help? 04:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: no valid reason provided. --Nemo 14:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A bit unfair, since we have no guidance as to what constitutes a valid reason. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Use. While the interwiki shortcut is in use and the collective communities do not forbade the link, then it is the task of meta to reflect the broader communities' wishes, or the specific requirement of a wiki that they require the link to continue to exist.

We are not disagreeing with any commentary about linking to IB sites, we are just reflecting that the meta admins are required to reflect the global wishes, and that the continued use is a de fact requirement to continue to exist. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If the fact that the IW prefix is in use results in an inability to deactivate the prefix, then why does the notice at the top of the "Proposed removals" section refer to "the difficulty involved in correcting any use of the prefix"? Wouldn't the existence of that clause imply that prefixes may be deactivated even while they're in use? LtPowers (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the approach expressed by the meta admins is in conflict with the statement that you highlight. I also think that it gives you a clear avenue to pursue to achieve your goal. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The usage list for world66: at [3] indicates that the only use of this prefix as part of the encyclopaedic content was on w:Muslim conquest of Persia#Conquest of Southeastern Persia (Kerman and Makran) and two translations (ca: and it:) of that same article. I've replaced these with proper external links; nonetheless the use of user-supplied content as a WP:RS to provide a reference for facts is not desirable. As the site purports to be based on what was once user-supplied content (even if those users can no longer edit) this is not reliable as a source for an encyclopaedia per WP:V.
The only other instances of world66: (other than a copy of the interwiki table itself on testwiki) appear to be on the list of largest wikis and Wikivoyage (with translations) pages on meta: itself, and those inclusions are questionable as this is not currently an editable wiki and not part of Wikivoyage.
As such, there is no case to be made that the prefix is in use in any meaningful sense of the concept. K7L (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a sound argument. No longer used, and the initial reason for its addition is no longer valid. I would Support Support the removal on the grounds provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Support, now these are sound arguments :) Snowolf How can I help? 06:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Support - Usage is rare and it doesn't serve to help any of the sister projects. JamesA (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thehelpfulone 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requests for updates


I see that Wikitravel has already been discussed above, but I wouldn't see anything strange in updating it to link instead when it's officially launched, as it's arguably the new location of the same content (cf. bugzilla:41983). However, if you think the request is actually the same I'll self-reject this one. --Nemo 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as the Wikitravel trademark is owned by IB, and in active use, I expect this move could result in further legal troubles beyond the current. LtPowers (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That is a matter for the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation to decide upon. Should he believe this to be an issue, he would advise us to remove it, or instruct WMF personnel to remove them as an OFFICE action. Snowolf How can I help? 20:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Done [4]: no opposition in five days seems enough for a semi-trivial update. --Nemo 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you ask the General Counsel? JamesA (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That's actually not an acceptable way of doing things. Legal will provide a bit more detail, but it should be self-evident that pretending that WT is the same as WV is ... problematic. ;-) --Eloquence (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The idea of sending readers to the active community that authored the content makes some sense, but doing so in the manner you are proposing is problematic. The link says Wikitravel but points to Wikivoyage. It may be easier to take that shortcut, but it is potentially misleading, and not in the spirit of the mission. If you want to go this route, we recommend you change the name of the link rather than just redirecting. Kkay (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The reversion is the right decision, and I would think Nemo's was the wrong decision based on the comment in the other contemporary discussion as the discussions should be read in unison, not as sequential, and the other had very specific disagreement that this should be actioned. It also takes away from each wiki's ability to make decision to where they link, especially as each wiki had not been alerted to the change. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Eloquence, I don't see how an interwiki prefix would mean pretending that, but thanks for fixing if you think so. --Nemo 07:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
JamesA: no need to do that, see Snowolf. Kkay: in the hover text you mean? Billinghurst: the other discussion flew on far philosophical planets and wasn't relevant, this was more useful to me [5]; local wikis wouldn't really be affected. --Nemo 07:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No, not the hovertext, Nemo, the actual name of the interwiki prefix. It shouldn't say "WikiTravel" and link to WikiVoyage. If it's going to link to WikiVoyage, it should say WikiVoyage. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Prefixes are only in the wikitext, any chosen prefix is always only whatever was found convenient and has only a loose relation to the wiki's name. Nemo 11:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since, A. WV includes German/Italian content that has been editied independently for 6 years, and, B. The moment WV forked the other content from Wikitravel in August and began editing it independently, it became unique: There is no reason to attempt to eliminate the WP community's access to *both* these unique and relevant travel resources. This is a spiteful maneuver by a small group of editors to negatively impact both the WP and very active (250,000 visits and hundreds of daily edits) Wikitravel communities by depriving them of these mutual resources. Wikipedia is and will continue to be linked to from all of Wikitravel's content pages, and we expect this reciprocal relationship to be maintained as it has been for many years.--IBobi talk email 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

AbbeNormal dead?

I'm getting a "not found" error from . It appears to have been moved to . What should be done about this? Leucosticte (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done [6] hoping the most relevant content has been saved there. --Nemo 11:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)