Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2014

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

Proposed additions


This wiki had the uncyclopedia: prefix, which was removed when Wikia moved the project from to over the community's objections a few years ago. Uncyclopedia moved to a non-Wikia server on Jan 5, 2013; it is not possible to reach their new wiki (or any of a long list of Uncyclopedia languages on non-Wikia sites) using the wikia: prefix and there are still quite a few user pages with broken links to this wiki. 08:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be two Uncyclopedias: wikia:uncyclopedia and Do we favour one over the other? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Please reply. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Prefix: uncyclopedia:

X mark.svg Not done Users are not going to know which to use to link to which site. Too confusing, please use full urls. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Those seems to be used by non-english version of uncyclopedia that shouldn't be problem if it is just linking to english uncyclopedia...C933103 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If a wiki set exists in multiple languages, is there a stated preference for which language we use as point of entry? The wikipedia: wikinews: and similar links normally point to English (so$1 or$1 and, if the pattern is retained,$1) but is there any policy favouring one language over another? K7L (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
English is obviously the one we would use in this case, especially so we don't break existing links. I think we should just keep this the way it is unless someone can clarify this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Esolang wiki

Prefix: esolang, Link:$1, Links from "top 40" Wikipedias: [1].

This wiki is used a lot more than many other interwikis are, so I think it can be added. Content is under CC0 (Public Domain Dedication). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: thoughts? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, a good solid active wiki with lots of links from WMF sites. I think this kind of proactive addition to the interwiki map is a great idea :) This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Prefix: proofwiki, Link: //$1, Links from "top 40" Wikipedias: [2]

This wiki is used a lot more than many other interwikis are, so I think it can be added. Content is under CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: thoughts? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is also a good solid active wiki, so yes, I think it should be added as well. This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed prefix: tfwiki, link:$1

TFWiki is a well-established wiki which has been at its current URL for over five years. At over 18 thousand articles, it's also the largest and most-reliable Transformers wiki. Content is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and regularly maintained by a large community (of which I am a part). --Alden Bates (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It has a lot on links (at least on enwiki), is under a free license, and seems otherwise fine. I will add this in a few days if nobody objects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PiRSquared17! --Alden Bates (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Most surprised (and somewhat disappointed) that in welcoming the newest member of the Wikimedia club we included a prefix for Wikidata (d:) but we don't seem to have one for WikiVoyage (largely because WikiVersity now occupies v:). Therefore, I propose wv:, vy: or just voyage: until we get a developer to talk about this, because the other wikis have dedicated interwikis that are not in the table, e.g. wikt:, that seem to be the result of developer work. I did a brief check on Google to see if wv: and vy: had ISO langcodes but I could find none, but if someone double checks my work and finds some ISO codes we could fall back on voyage: plus if an ISO code were to be issued later in the future we could always remove wv: and vy: from the interwiki map. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

voy: exists. Savhñ 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok, but that's still not completely obvious to me, so these could remain as aliases in the interwiki table for awhile. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Might want to check back through the history (Nov-Dec 2012?) as voy: appears to have been chosen on the assumption that wv: could be mistaken for Wikiversity. K7L (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: please use Special:Interwiki for your reference not the obverse of this page, that lot is just additions, not what is core for WMF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, duplication hasn't been the practice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and your consideration. I had not known that special page existed and will use it in the future. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Komica wiki

link:$1 prefix:KomicaWiki:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top20wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):GPL License
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:list of pages:
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add this if nobody objects within a few days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@C993103: Yes check.svg Done (diff). PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I have removed it as I think it needs wider review, after checking zh:Komica seems to be quite controversial. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't speak this language, and machine translation from Chinese to English is a hopeless pursuit (what does this mean: 有許多內容是事實和惡搞參雜,亦記有島民常用語、成句、Komica上的名人和歴史事件。 = "There are many facts and spoof content is mixed, also remember there Islander common language, a sentence, celebrities and Historical events Komica on." Is this calling into question the veracity of the site's contents? I couldn't say for sure...)
In addition, it's not widely linked to (only 61 links from zhwiki and 3 from enwiki). This, that and the other (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Spoof content are striked in article there and i don't think it is a factor to be consider when the above discussion about addition of uncyclopedia to the interwikimap does not touch this point...and is tens of links from wikipedia alone not enough?C933103 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@Shizhao and Bencmq: is this ok? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know too much about the site. A quick browsing shows nothing very objectionable, so content seems fine. Re: that sentence, yes it roughly means "some contents are mixture of facts and parody", but I can't really verify that.--Bencmq (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Re-Added Added. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


link:$1 prefix:freesoft:

Alive and kicking, about 170 links from w:en:, existing Interwiki templates could be used for their pages: example link. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I will add if nobody objects in a few days (and I don't forget). Ping me if I don't reply by Saturday. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: Done, thanks also for your comment below. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Works already, I tested it on w:Freeware ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

c: for Commons

Should c: be added to the interwiki map for Wikimedia Commons? A request for comments has been opened, following a 2011 RfC on the same topic which, while positive, did not see wide participation. — Scott talk 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See also bugzilla:4676. I submitted a patch like the one for d: and m: rather than editing IWM directly, which has been added and reverted before. If you believe IWM is more appropriate than editing the operations files directly, the patch can and should be abandoned. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17:It's about time we got this over and done with, I think. Let's just add "c:" to the interwiki map and wait for it to be updated on the server. I've been trying to get Reedy's attention on this and other interwiki matters, but I have been met with silence so far. This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done but if this breaks everything don't blame me. :P PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sweet. Seeing c:User:Scott turn blue is going to be very rewarding after all the work that led up to it. — Scott talk 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

link:$1 prefix:enkol is an open and free (CC-BY-SA and PD) encyclopedia of railway engineering, law and history. It is also a repository of railway-related pictures, technical drawings, schemata, documents and legal acts.

  • provides clear and relevant use to in particular pl.wikipedia and commons
  • does not encourage spam links
  • as mentioned above is of free content (CC-BY-SA and PD)
  • is a wiki
  • has reasonable amounts of contents:
  • does not contain malware or sign for malware included in it

Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable, and thanks for showing us how it meets the requirements! Looks like a good free resource that could be linked to. If nobody objects, I will add this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Pawel Niemczuk: Added Added. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: Thank you! Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)




Hey there I'm from Zh-Wikipedia. It has been a routine for me to use the "namespace" of google:. But you know, in Chinese, Google can't be everything. Baidu is a Chinese search engine which can provide more reliable search results in Chinese. So would any admin please add a baidu: link to the current interwiki list? It's an urge need. Besides,due to the Internet censorship in China, many of ZhWP users can't access google successfully. Please consider adding that link.Super Wang (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold: someone needs to check the conclusion of the past discussion (if there was one) about adding non-wiki URLs contrary to the current, now-stricter requirements of #Proposed additions. --Nemo 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be done. Grandfathering considerations aside, to have Google and to not add Baidu is silly. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't have other search engines (e.g., yahoo, bing,, duckduckgo) either. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done linking to a search engine is truly not good linking for encyclopaedias. It probably wasn't right to do Google, however, that is not a knot that I wish to unpick. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any objective criteria for deciding which search engines to add, and which not to? Is Google just there for historical reasons? Leucosticte (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, it sounds like consensus-can-change may have already occurred, and the google-grandfathering should be eliminated as a mistake. Is there a scan we can do, to see how the current google-prefix-namespace-thing is being used... and how *many* of them there are? I'd never heard of it until today, but at first glance it seems like programmatic replacement with the equivalent URL would not impair anything. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part? 17:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the count-tool.[3] See also these detailed instructions for rolling your own queries.[4] There are over 6000 uses of google:$1 on enWiki alone (plus another 9k on other wikis), albeit only a few of those 6k are in mainspace, and then usually just google:$pageTitle in the external links section. Interestingly, 4k of those enWiki hits are on subpages of w:User:Rybec alone, but there *are* at least 100 other people that made use of the shorthand for one reason or another (most of them just a handful of times though). Other major uses: there are about 750 in w:Project:Most_missed_articles, about 400 in AfD (usually simply the pagename but sometimes customized e.g. google:"Alexander+Ferocia"+-myspace was one I noticed), about 50 in AfC, about 30 in Category, and and a bunch of miscellaneous. Some that seemed useful were:
  1. specialized uses: google:2*pi*(6600^3/398600)^.5/60 in w:Template talk:Earth_orbits,
  2. google:link: in w:Backlink, and
  3. in w:Talk:Recreation.
  4. There were several translation-and-sourcing examples on article-talkpages, plus a few w:WP:COMMONNAME disputes with w:WP:GOOG as a tool. google:一卡通 in w:Talk:Yikatong,
  5. google:عباس+العقاد in w:Talk:Abbas_el-Akkad,
  6. google:Šta+je+pisac+hteo+da+kaže in w:Talk:Bosnian_language/Archive_3,
  7. google:нуржиц in w:Talk:2000_Ramallah_lynching, and
  8. google:"Baekdu_Mountain"_OR_"Baekdusan"_OR_"Paekdu_Mountain"_OR_"Paekdusan"_OR_"Paektu_Mountain"_OR_"Paektusan"_-Wikipedia_-"Changbai_Mountains" in w:Talk:Paektu_Mountain.
  9. Sourcing: google:dotriacontagon for w:Talk:Cross-polytope,
  10. google:iOS7+copy+android for w:Talk:IOS_7, and
  11. google:Journal_of_Biosocial_Science_Gregory_Cochran for w:Talk:Gregory_Cochran.
  12. Other pretty worthwhile usages: google:Wikipedia_unblock in w:Template talk:Unblock,
  13. google:"This+user+is+a+suspected+sock+puppet+of+Willy+on+Wheels" in Project talk:Deny_recognition/Archives/2006/09,
  14. google:"Wikipedia_cultist" in w:Project:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great,
  15. google:Randy_in_Boise in w:Project talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Archive_2.
But quite a lot of the uses I noticed seemed kinda useless and/or autogenerated: google:AcademyAwardBestDocumentaryFeature+footer in w:Template:AcademyAwardBestDocumentaryFeature_footer for example. Rybec's 4300 must be for something, obviously, though I'm not sure that the specialized "interwiki" prefix is helpful enough to make the problem a gordian knot. There *is* plenty of other usage, outside enWiki, however. We're talking about hundreds of people that have, at one time anyways, used this prefix-namespace-thingie.
  Furthermore, besides the straightforward google: for searching, there is also cache: for saved copies (contrast with / / however which are permanent... goog wipes after 30 days), scholar: for academic cite-searches, googlegroups for dejanews fka usenet (not usually reliable sources... but sometimes used as primary sources... and on wiktionary used for attestation), as well as googledefine: which again is prolly more useful to wiktionary folks than to the other WMF projects. Missing is google translate and also google books and also perhaps google maps (although WikiMiniAtlas seems like a win to me for that purpose). Anyways, my initial thought that maybe this would be easy to deprecate, turns out to be wrong... there are quite a few things that use such prefixes.
  But methinks we either need to deprecate the official google-prefixes, or add some other engines. Maybe we can have a search: prefix and a translate: prefix, and the target search-engine and/or translation-engine is picked based on the user's browser configuration settings? Methinks it is possible to google:use javascript to detect what the default search engine is for every user, on the fly. There are bugs in the current system, though, which may mean we should nix search-engine-prefix entirely. Talk:Interwiki_map#google has the rawurlencode details. 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
All the google: links in Rybec's userspace are on one page, "User:Rybec/failed-requests-list". That makes up for a good chunk of the total number of links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was invited to comment by The instances in w:en:Wikipedia:Most missed articles and my pages such as w:en:User:Rybec/failed-requests-mn arise from the templates w:en:User:Melancholie/mmA and w:en:User:Rybec/tstats. If the google: function is removed, the templates can be edited and all will be well with those pages, unless/until Google changes its URL format (e.g. if or whatever it is were changed to then each page would have to be updated, whereas now it can presumably be updated in a single place). I'm not actually using the google: links: I have difficulty using Google, so I added a different search engine to my copy of the template.

w:en:Wikipedia:Most missed articles is a list of requests for non-existent article titles. It's used as a source of ideas for creating articles or redirects. In the process of doing so, people have occasion to use a search engine. Rybec (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015 wiki

link: //$1 prefix:Wm2015:

Wiki's created - why not iwiki prefix. --Base (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes please. This, that and the other (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Added Added diff. --Glaisher (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (DPD)

Like [[drae:]], this is an elaborate work undertaken by the Real Academia Española (RAE – Royal Spanish Academy) and the Association of Spanish Language Academies with the goal of resolving questions related to the proper use of the Spanish language. It is one of the most used sources in Spanish Wikipedia (one of its possible URLs is currently included more than 81 000 times there).

Regards, and thanks in advance. --abián 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Added Añadido. Savhñ 18:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC) is planned to deprecate RT and Bugzilla in a few weeks. The +70.000 Bugzilla reports will be migrated there, and all the new bug/task management in Wikimedia will be hosted there. At least mw:Template:Tracked relies today in the bugzilla: interwiki link, and they need a phabricator: one for the same purpose. In fact you can track this task at Add phabricator to the interwiki map.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: It is a no brainer that we do it. Do we also what a shorter shortcut? phab? When do want it available? Especially as you guys run the update anyway? If we create it early, can you systematically point it elsewhere if its existence now is problematic? Also, would you be able to address what can/should happen to bugzilla: interwiki. Thanks  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply, billinghurst. I guess an additional shorter shortcut (nice combination of words, isn't it?) can't harm, and "phab" would be the obvious choice. I suggested the long one because this is what I saw being used at mw:Template:Tracked, but I have no strong opinions myself. You can create it asap, and in fact it would be great if you could (for testing etc). As of today, isn't ready for the masses, but the content is real, and some people (like myself) are starting to link to it from wiki pages. bugzilla: can stay for compatibility reasons. Old Bugzilla URLs will redirect to their new Phabricator equivalents after the migration, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. For instance, Template:Tracked is keeping that compatibility as well.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done for phabricator and phab. @Reedy: would you please plan an update of interwiki map for Quim. Thx.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Not done

link: http://www$$2 prefix:atwiki: or @wiki:
  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top40wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):Not really
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:list of pages:google ssearch with site: command give a huge amount of result.
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add this if nobody objects within a few days. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this needs wider review. @This, that and the other: please check these? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
An interwiki prefix isn't going to work for this site, because the domains are of the form, where X is some number (e.g. I tried in the hope it would redirect to the correct subdomain, but as you can see, it doesn't work. People will have to continue to use URLs for this site. This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about a script that would redirect $1:$2 to http://www$$2? It it worth the effort? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Not worth it, I'd say. Their wikis are of widely varying usefulness and activity levels. Some of them may be useful, but if making it an interwiki means allowing them bypass mechanisms like captcha and abuse filters, I don't think it is a good idea. Besides that, regarding malware, just half a year ago, Atwiki's user credential databases were reportedly entirely leaked and its thousands of wikis were exposed to risks of being hijacked by malware/virus distributors. [7][8] whym (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done per objections raised by the users. — M 11:25, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

WMFLabs' Phabricator

The following discussion is closed: Not needed now

link:$1 prefix:fabr

It seems some tools of WMFLabs will migrate into this, thus I wonder we can add an iwlink to it. Note: no "fab" because it's ISO 639-3 for Fa d'Ambu Language. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Labs subdomain was only a temporary location, and that the "real" Phabricator would be in PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And wouldn't we eventually want the prefix "phab" anyway? (Or we could even have "ph"; it's not an ISO prefix. But that's a discussion for later.) This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This test instance doesn't exist anymore, and the new test instance lives at (but imho it doesn't need any interwiki link).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As far as I know, phab: already works. Is this still required? Thanks (ping to Qgil-WMF, PiRSquared17, This, that and the other). Best regards. — M 11:06, 06 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. We have phab:, and as Quim said above, there is no need to link to the site. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Pefect, thanks. X mark.svg Not done then. — M 11:13, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Added

MetaWikipedia should be kept for BC, but in core it's now MetaWikimedia. Its absence in the IWM causes confusion, see [9]. --Nemo 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is unambiguous and uncontroversial, so it can be added. Let's wait a few days to see if anyone objects, unless it's urgent. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikia still has this on their Interwiki map together with m: and MetaWikiMedia:. Their Interwiki map talk page is now frozen. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please add this. We've got ourselves (both here and in MediaWiki itself) into a bit of mess with these links to Meta, so for consistency I think we need to add metawikimedia: here. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done, see diff. Regards. — M 11:22, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

hdl: –

Resolve resource access by w:en:Handle System (RFC 3650), as doi: prefix already does.

Since hdl is not a registered code by ISO 639 / SIL, no conflict with a future WMF language version is expected. See:

The hdl: access is available for many documents referenced on wikis already, and the DOI system is based upon it. Actually, DOI is a special case of hdl: and doi:10.1000/182 yields to the same as will do. However, DOI is only one authority 10 among many more, but with specific constraints. While DOI is well known, the other authorities are mentioned on papers, but often ignored by wiki authors yet. I do expect increasing amount of usage (currently 7,374 on enwiki, 863 on dewiki).

Greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Deja News

I'm surprised that there's still a link to Deja News; Google took over Deja aaages ago. And surely this link (even if it works anymore, and even if there are any instances of it on Wikipedia) merely duplicates the Google Groups link? -- 11:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked to toolserver database (which contains no private wikis) for finding existing links:
eswikinews: 1 link n:es:Help:Cómo se edita un artículo
eswiki: 1 link w:es:Help:Cómo se edita una página
Merlissimo 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can it be translated somehow to a Google Groups link? is it worth it? --Nemo 18:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The only place it is used is in a list of interwikis. I have no idea whether Deja News URLs can be translated to Google News ones. Although it is not currently harmful, I think we should remove it. It has no use now. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I couldn't find any way to map to Google Groups. Regardless, DejaNews has been dead for a long time and according to the discussion below there are only trivial usages of this prefix remaining. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Wiki is a very common word nowadays, and most people think of Wikipedia when they see a wiki: link. Instead, probably for historical reasons, it points to, which is a grossly outdated unknown to most web site. They might have been the first wiki, and I have a great respect for that, but I don't think that warrants a "wiki" namespace. They can keep the other three namespaces if that's important. --Yurik (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. -- YPNYPN 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I would actually suggest retargeting wiki: to the interwiki map. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose. Wikipedia is not the only wiki. Don't reinforce the idea that it's correct to call Wikipedia "Wiki". --Yair rand (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How does removing this prefix reinforce that idea? LtPowers (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would much prefer that the prefix was removed and unassigned. It is now too generic in its use to be assigned, internally or externally. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the proposal. I thought it also included making wiki: direct to Wikipedia. --Yair rand (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Support removal. There is rarely reason to go to and it has three other more specific prefixes C2:, PyWiki: and WikiWikiWeb:. Most people probably expected to go somewhere else for wiki:, for example Wikipedia or the project space for the wiki they are currently at, or they may think it's a name for the unnamed mainspace. Note: On 25 December I linked this discussion from en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Question about wikipedia search. All replies were posted since then. Here are other examples of confused users:
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 105#Bug in Wikipedia Search?
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 62#Using the .5B.5Bwiki:anything.5D.5D tag on Wikipedia redirects to non-Wikipedia website
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 52#Entering "wiki:" into search box redirects to
PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
More examples of confused users at the English Wikipedia:
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 17#Why does search for "wiki:<anything>" goes to a site of Ward Cunningham?
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 July 4#Searching for or linking to "wiki:foo" redirects to a blank page at
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 September 11#What is this?
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 June 16#Umm...
en:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 January 13#Redirect problem
There is an old discussion at Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2008#wiki:. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Support remove. It is a issue in other languages to - pl.source. Sp5uhe (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Support removal, but keep it unassigned for now until we can (a) assess how many uses of it there are on Wikimedia wikis; and (b) evaluate and decide what the best purpose (if any) of the prefix is. wiki: --> Wikipedia feels nasty. This will need further thought and deliberation. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    @MZMcBride. You able to dig up the usage information, so we can see how much work is involved to clean up. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Question: Can someone comment on my suggestion that this be retargeted to the interwiki map? If "wiki" is generic, we don't know where they want to go. But that place might be on the map. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean wiki:pagename should ignore pagename and always go to // with no $1? I don't know whether entries with no $1 are allowed, and it would still confuse users who think wiki: is the mainspace or project space at their current wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. I don't know if that's technically possible, but thought it was a good idea. Any confusion issue should be able to be resolved by modifying the note at the top of the InterWiki Map slightly to explain how people got here and what the Interwiki Map is. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment thanks to @PiRSquared17: new helping tool, I have been able to review what is in place. We have a mixture of bad links where people think that wiki: is a shortcut to w:, others where it is a typo for wikt: and those that legitimately point to Wade's wiki. I have been through and fixed all the live links across the wikis, though did not change any in talk pages or archives.

I think what we should do is to create a new interwiki for Wade's links and I am suggesting c2: and once that is in place, we undertake a global replacement of those links to his wiki (there is probably only 100-200 target links, and they are not hard to identify); then once that is done we simply kill the wiki: interwiki; dead blue links now, dead red links later.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

PiRSquared17 tells me that we already have c2: for Wade, so it shouldn't be controversial to move them, which I am now doing, and it would indicate that it is not a requisite link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed Converted the wiki to c2, removing it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not all usages have been removed. It's always sad to see the irresistible expansion of linkrot. :( --Nemo 14:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Talk page links might as well be fixed too. There are 1060 soon-to-be-broken links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I archived CSV of remaining wiki: links before it was removed, but this assumes that they are all in the interwiki table, which is unlikely (see below). We can do better, but I don't really want to spend more time on this unless someone cares. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Page titles on WikiWikiWeb follow a strict CamelCase format and can be distinguished from project-space links by matching against the regex /wiki:[A-Z][a-z]+[A-Z][a-z]+([A-Z][a-z]+)*/. When I'm home later today I'll split the list entries for enwiki and submit a bot request, which will take care of 727 out of your 1074 broken links. — Scott talk 11:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Submitted.Scott talk 17:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
They didn't seem to be very helpful so I just did it myself with AutoWikiBrowser. — Scott talk 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on the status of this from the discussion above -- but has anybody simply asked Ward (not Wade) what he thinks would be a desirable outcome? He's a smart guy, this kind of thing is his core expertise, and he's on the Wikimedia Advisory Board. -Pete F (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: the status is obviously "removed", since wiki: is broken and it was deleted from the IWM (article of this talk page). PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I should have been clearer, @PiRSquared17:. I see that the link has been removed, but there has been further discussion. I do not feel I am the right person to reach out, because I would want to give him an overview of the decision process, what happened, and if there are any remaining decisions to be made or cleanup to do. Without dong a lot of reading and interpreting, I can't do that. I think it would be better if somebody who has participated in this discussion were to send him a quick message. -Pete F (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (His email address is listed on his web site.) -Pete F (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott: maybe you should do this, since you actually were involved with WikiWikiWeb PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: there's nothing left to do here. All the links to WikiWikiWeb on the English Wikipedia have been fixed (by me), and in fact, a lot of accidental broken ones to it got repaired to their intended destinations in the process. It still has two functioning interwiki prefixes for people to use across WMF projects, and no action is needed on Ward's part. — Scott talk 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
OK cool. Thanks for the summary @Scott:, and sorry if I was missing the obvious. -Pete F (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Clarifications never hurt anyone. Cheers, — Scott talk 10:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Tesol Taiwan

The following discussion is closed: Removed

Spammed TESOL Taiwan is spam. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. This was always a useless thing to have on the map, and it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that anyone would have ever actually been interested in linking to it from WMF wikis. Indeed, the two uses are trivial. This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I will remove this if there are no objections. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed Removed diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Not functional Wikichat is online but no longer has content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed Removed, diff. Savhñ 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Dead/spam See (koavf)TCM 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Removed diff Four uses only and three on pages/sections which lists interwiki links. The other one modified. --Glaisher (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: MetaWikiSearch IW created, MetaWiki now redirecting to this site

Hi. Everytime I want to use the Meta-Wiki interwiki, I always have the reflex to use [[:MetaWiki:]], but this links to and I think this is wrong. If we want to keep linking on, we should create interwiki [[:MetaWikiSearch:]] and not monopolize "MetaWiki" in other way than Meta-Wiki. Thank you. Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --MF-W 00:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I have also had the same confusion so agree with this. --Glaisher [talk] 07:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What, metawiki: doesn't go to this project? Support Support redirecting the prefix to this project. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
How many uses are there on WMF projects? What about on other projects using this interwiki map (hard to measure)? I recommend we change any remaining usages to a new version before changing this, so we don't end up with weird broken links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: I've figured out how to find usages of interwiki prefixes using Wikimedia Labs; see User:This, that and the other/interwiki. (Nemo, you might be particularly interested in this.) Data for this "metawiki" prefix is at User:This, that and the other/metawiki. All the usages seem erroneous or trivial. It is worth noting that namespaces do not appear relevant to the site, so links to metawiki:User:xyz would never have worked as intended.
As for other projects using this interwiki map, I think it is unlikely that any would exist, due to the difficulty of adapting our dumpInterwiki/rebuildInterwiki scripts to external installations. Even if others are using our data, the metawiki: interwiki prefix is installed by default with MediaWiki (pointing to, so people should still have it anyway.
Personally I think this Metawiki Search site is so badly out of date that it should just be removed from the map. Many of the wikis indexed by Metawiki Search are stale or no longer accessible. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with TTO - Metawiki Search is an artifact of the early wiki network. Sunir's never going to update it - even MeatballWiki has been fishbowled now. Sad times, but we have to move on. — Scott talk 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott and Nemo bis: I agree that this is reasonable to remove, as it has no real usage, except for people who meant to use "m:" or "meta:" (or archaic "metawikipedia:"). (When I made my previous comment here, I had no statistics on usage.) Any objections? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No :) This, that and the other (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done [10] — M 11:34, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: still in use at wikitech, to be reviewed when that use ceases  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The "rt" interwiki prefix was added in this edit following this talk page post (can't really call it a discussion...). RT is private and the cited use-case is wikitech:httpsless domains, which pretty clearly doesn't use this interwiki map. There's also now confusion that "RT" is a namespace alias for the local "Research talk" namespace. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "RT" used for? Searching for "RT" on Meta doesn't bring up anything that explains what it is, it's not in the glossary, and I can't find anything else of interest. The BestPractical site describes its product as the "leading enterprise-grade open source issue tracking system", but don't we already have bug tracking systems? There are a few uses, but I don't know which of these links are correct. I'd guess the ones that aren't numbers aren't really links to "RT", but I'm not sure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: It's an internal, password-protected issue tracker used by the Wikimedia operations team for confidential stuff. Yes, anything that is not a number is not a correct use of this interwiki. The three uses on mediawikiwiki lead me to think this should stay, but it's definitely borderline. This, that and the other (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
See also the RT page on Wikitech. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: RT will soon be closed down as part of the migration to Phabricator, so this is an opportune time to kill off this interwiki link. I removed the 5 valid uses of this link from and Meta, so it is safe to remove this from the map now. This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • {{ok}} [11] — M 11:38, 06 December 2014 (UTC)Reverted, see below
  • The reasons provided here to justify this link breaking are really unconvincing. I'm very sad that the interwiki map gets more and more unreliable. --Nemo 12:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm willing to revert the removal if you think it's worth keeping it Nemo. But the site is going down so I don't see how it can be useful. Open to be convinced otherwise. Regards. — M 12:12, 06 December 2014 (UTC) (readded — M 12:27, 06 December 2014 (UTC))
    The migration timeline expects, that this site goes down on 2014-12-15. Private sites with a login have no business on an Interwiki map intended for all wikis (not limited to Wikimedia or Mediawiki). –Be..anyone (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    What is being broken here? There are no links on WMF wikis anymore (other than wikitech, which uses its own interwiki map). Bugzilla had its own RT linking regex, so there ought not to have been any links of the form [[rt:1234]] there; and that's moot anyway, now that the migration to Phabricator as occurred. I normally agree with you, Nemo, but just am not sure what you're referring to here. This, that and the other (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    @This, that and the other: does wikitech use its own Interwiki map? I thought that they became the same when there was some standardisation earlier this year. (Comment is separate to any opinion about the request)  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think you're right, Billinghurst. It seems that wikitech does now use the same interwiki map as all other WMF wikis. This means that RT will need to remain on this interwiki map for the time being, and perhaps forever (at least as long as wikitech is still with us).
    As for why PiRSquared's tool doesn't cover labswiki (as wikitech is internally known), I don't know the answer to that. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the link must remain, right? I propose to close this request as not done for now, until the site goes down for everyone when the interwiki link won't be required anymore. -- M\A 09:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Offline Flyerwiki has been offline for 18 months. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [12] - Sorry that it took so long Justin. Regards. — M 12:05, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Not functional SMikipedia is online but no longer has content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [13] — M 12:07, 06 December 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Removed

Not functional BibleWiki is online but no longer has content. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done [14] — M 12:09, 06 December 2014 (UTC)

Requests for updates


I propose switching sulutil:Nemo_bis to point to Special:CentralAuth/Nemo_bis. When "sulinfo" was first added, Special:CentralAuth was very limited. Nowadays, it's far more robust and far more stable than the Toolserver or Labs. This was brought up at bugzilla:53987#c13. Without objection, I'd like to switch the prefix (and perhaps add an "sulinfo" prefix...). If there are objections, I'd like to know what they are so that we can fix Special:CentralAuth to the point that an external dependency is no longer needed. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(somewhat related) I've always preferred CentralAuth to sulutil [in most cases] as it is faster, more stable, and that's what the purpose of the page is. It is however missing the list of global groups for a SUL account and local groups for each attached wiki. Of course, that can be fixed. If you agree that these features would be useful, I will file a bug for that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't pay much attention to the user groups, but I see you've filed bugzilla:56045 (thanks for that!). Do you think this bug is a blocker to switching the interwiki prefix? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily a blocker, but it would be nice to have CentralAuth give that info, as sulutil already does. Even if you don't pay much attention to rights, it's sometimes useful to find where someone's an admin, or to get a list of global groups (most people wouldn't use API or GlobalUsers). PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. --Nemo 06:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment sulutil:Nemo bis also shows registration date, user groups and edit counts on unattached projects (French Wikivoyage and Gujarati Wiktionary), whereas Special:CentralAuth/Nemo bis only displays the words "not attached". sulutil:Nemo bis also lists information about accounts on non-SUL projects (wmf: and two labswikimedia projects) whereas Special:CentralAuth/Nemo bis pretends that those projects don't exist. If you use sulutil:, you can also find account information even if no one has gone to Special:MergeAccount to create an account. This means that sulutil: has some extra information, but I don't know if people think that this extra information is essential. Also, most of the differences will go away once SUL has been finalised. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    The rights issue is bugzilla:56045. The other issues could be filed as enhancements as well, but I'm not sure they will be fixed before SUL is finalized. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    Stefan2: Do you consider any of the issues you mentioned to be blockers to switching the interwiki prefix? I'm a bit confused why newer projects such as the French Wikivoyage would be considered unattached or why it would be appropriate to show information for non-attached accounts (that seems antithetical to the purpose of the tool in some ways...).
    The reality is that the current tool is so slow we may be forced to switch over. I can't get <> to even load at the moment. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    It took 9m30.186s, according to `time curl ""`. This is unacceptably slow in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't use sulutil very often, so I don't think that I would personally be affected by a change of the interwiki prefix. sulutil:Nemo bis is currently way too slow and takes me several minutes to load, so it isn't very useful for the moment. I occasionally use SUL tools to check if a serial copyright violator also is violating copyright elsewhere, but due to sulutil being so slow, I tend to use Special:CentralAuth for this purpose instead.
I think that the question should be asked on pages which regularly link to sulutil using the interwiki prefix in case it affects someone's work. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This has always pointed to the external tool and that adds additional information including user rights. If we need a centralauth shortcut, then propose a separate shortcut that can be used, rather than one that overrides an existing tool. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2013.
    If CentralAuth gave user right info, would you support this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    Note that now it does, see testwiki:Special:CentralAuth/Legoktm (hasn't been deployed to meta yet). Legoktm (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    Billinghurst: Question above for you. The Toolserver is slowly dying and Special:CentralAuth will soon include both local and global user groups. Any reason not to switch where the prefix points? The argument that the prefix has historically pointed to an external tool doesn't hold much weight for me. A major benefit of using an interwiki prefix rather than a full external link is that the target can be updated based on future events, such as Special:CentralAuth becoming more robust. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • While Special:CentralAuth is more reliable than TS, there are the following differences (apart from listing global/local groups, which will be available also here soon, as we read):
    • sulutil lists the registration time for local accounts, S:CA the time of attachment to the SUL account.
    • S:CA shows no data for unattached accounts
    • For usernames for which there is no global account, S:CA doesn't show anything at all, while sulutil displays all local accounts with the name.
    These should be fixed before changing the interwiki link direction (especially the last point). However, it can maybe be updated to the labs version ( already now? --MF-W 23:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    I used //$1 so Yes check.svg Done. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Spain

wmes: points to but it is a redirect to --ralgis·/t/ 17:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for delay, I didn't notice this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Ralgis (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi all, just realised (through erroneously linking to it) that wmcz: links to the Meta page for the chapter, which is rather redundant. The chapter wiki at would be a more appropriate target, in my opinion. Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As the vice chair of WMCZ, I would like to formally approve this request and ask everyone capable of doing it to change the target of the interwiki code. Thanks, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel and Vojtěch Dostál: Yes check.svg Done diff. Please forgive me for the delay; I didn't notice this until now. All of the links would still work, since the pages on Meta have been copied to PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: are you sure? I tried wmcz:page and it still link to meta... am I wrong? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: Did you read the header of IWM? It is not updated constantly from the list. Yes, I am sure I did it right. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for clarification, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi all. The link that points to Toolserver provided by [[sulutil:$1]] for SUL information should be replaced by Labs, //$1. Thanks in advance. --abián 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abián: it's already pointed to Labs since January... PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right. I had tested on Wikitech, where the link hasn't been updated, so I thought it hadn't been updated globally yet. Thank you anyway. --abián 14:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


The link that points to pathroschild´s stewardry tool, should be updated so it points to labs, at: --Snaevar (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Please remove the http: scheme from WikiFur: - we are accessible on https: as well. GreenReaper (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done on table, we await the next update.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Wikinfo is now located at$1 (or$1 if you'd prefer to link to the English version). Cathfolant (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff. --Glaisher (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


The URL for mailarchive should be updated to$1, i.e. changing the protocol from http to https. This is because this patch makes HTTPS only. Chmarkine (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


The URL for translatewiki and betawiki should be updated to$1, i.e. changing from protocol relative to https, because translatewiki is now HTTPS only. redirects to for both registered and anonymous users. Chmarkine (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and will get updated in time  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


Please change the url for wmve: to Thanks! White Master (es) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actualizado. Sorry, Savhñ 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, new change for wmve: to Thanks! White Master (es) 08:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We should have the authority of WMVE to undertake a change. Do you hold an official position within the chapter? If so, please state the position, and if there is a public record of the request, please link to it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a member of the tech team and the charge of communications between the assembly and our team. Confirmation of our President: [15]. Request for new redirect: [16]. Thanks! White Master (es) 00:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff No content on ve.wikimedia anyway. [17] Also see bugzilla:55737. --Glaisher (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


The URL for phabricator and phab should be updated to$1, i.e. changing the protocol from protocol relative to https. This is because this patch makes HTTPS only. Chmarkine (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They redirect fine to https, so there isn't a need to force a protocol.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There are two reasons why specifying https is necessary. First, if the initial connection is over HTTP, the man in the middle can intercept and redirect that request to the attacker's server, so in this situation the user's request cannot even reach our servers. But if the initial request is over HTTPS, users are safe. Second, a less important reason is that by avoiding a redirect, the page loads slightly faster, since there is one less request. So please change the protocol to https. Thanks! Chmarkine (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done diff. --Glaisher (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, the URL of Wikimedia Canada (wmca:) has changed couple months ago. Would it possible to update interwiki to //$1 please? Thank you. Benoit Rochon 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff --Glaisher (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Benoit Rochon: unrelated but could you change your signature's link to meta userpage (or another public wiki) not the foundationwiki. It might be a bit confusing for newbies as foundationwiki is a fishbowl and they might not know how to contact you on user talk page. Thanks, --Glaisher (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Not done.

If nobody raises objections I plan to change the bugzilla interwiki link to point to; as currently bugzilla: links redirects to Phabricator, whose ticket numbers do not match. Changing the link of the IW bugzilla: to point to the archived site will fix this. -- M\A 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Note that bugzilla:12345 goes to Phabricator task T14345, which is the same bug (see It is better to have the interwiki link making use of the automatic redirection to Phabricator, as that is where all new action on the bugs/tasks will occur. Old-bugzilla is an archive, and obviously does not keep up with new developments on the bug reports.. This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I thought that bugzilla won't redirect us to the correct bug numbers now in Phabricator. I've checked some bugs and they all redirect me to the current Phabricator bugs. Autoclosed as X mark.svg Not done. Sorry for my ignorance. -- M\A 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions


Should a separate oeiswiki prefix be added? It would be equivalent to oeis:wiki/$1. I assume this would be considered a duplicate. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not really needed. You save one character in [[OEISWiki:Sequence_of_the_day]] vs. [[OEIS:wiki/Sequence_of_the_day]], but it could confuse editors trying to add A-numbers to their wikis. Please ignore me, if one or more active OEISWiki contributors like this suggestion. –Be..anyone(oeis) 19:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right, this isn't needed and probably shouldn't be added. Thanks for the comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Add class="wikitable sortable"

Just to help keep us sane and happy, could someone please add the class names wikitable sortable to the table? This will not affect the script, as it ignores all lines which do not match the regular expression ^\|\s*(.*?)\s*\|\|\s*(.*?)\s*$. Since the header line begins with {|, it will be ignored. This, that and the other (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cache update

Cache was updated yesterday (see, for example, zzz wiki:foo wiki:foo tfwiki:rgijege), please bump the date. This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done diff PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Abolishing the interwiki map

See Tim Starling's proposal to quit adding new interwiki prefixes and begin using URLs instead of interwiki links. He raises some interesting points. Leucosticte (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Next time you start a discussion directly related to this page, could you please let us know here? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I did intend to leave a note here; I simply forgot. This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A post in that discussion links to mw:Requests for comment/New sites system, which may also be of interest to readers here. — Scott talk 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone want to set uo archiving after 6m of no comments in a section? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It may not be possible using a bot, since we need level-3 headers to stay under the relevant level-2 header in the archive. Additionally, some posts are still current or unresolved after 6 months. I would prefer to continue manually archiving. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Can the iwlinks database table be trusted?

PiRSquared17 and possibly others have begun relying on data from the iwlinks table, but are we sure the data in this table can be trusted? Has anyone done any research into whether it properly tracks interwiki links? For some reason I have strange thoughts that this table was previously unused and/or unreliable, but I may simply be mistaken. Hard data on its accuracy/trustworthiness would be good to have before we rely on it in making decisions about which interwiki links to keep or remove. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nemo bis and This, that and the other: have also been using it. toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php seems to work. Note that it is currently slow, but I will try to fix it soon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You can usually do some sampling to figure out if it's accurate. Is the table lazy-loaded? I think that's the key question. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The interwiki search tool definitely presents current information, well it links disappear with removals, and not one link was incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. The issue isn't false positives, but false negatives. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have evidence that iwlinks is giving wrong information, then Bugzilla is the place. Otherwise, there's really no point worrying about a hypothetical. If iwlinks is lazy-loaded then we might be missing some very recently added interwiki links, but for long-broken interwiki prefixes such as the ones being discussed for removal above, I don't think this is a concern. This, that and the other (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: If the table is lazy-loaded, aren't you going to overlook links on any page that hasn't been null-edited since the change was implemented? This would naturally mean that older, less viewed and edited pages, which are most likely to use older entries on the interwiki map, would be ignored in any usage checks. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride: Which change are you referring to? This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: The introduction of the iwlinks table. I'm trying to figure out whether the iwlinks table is trustworthy. Has anyone randomly sampled the data to ensure that it's accurate? If the table was introduced in 2010 and millions of pages haven't been touched since 2010, their links won't be tracked in the iwlinks table, right? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
How many pages are there that have not been touched since 2010? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As an example, n:Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building was last edited in March 2009, and I would find it hard to believe that anyone would have made a null edit to the page since then. Yet its interwikis to "wikipaltz" are in the iwlinks table for enwikinews.

And to answer your question, PiR, see Special:AncientPages on any wiki. This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was touched in 2012:
<page pageid="24510" ns="1" title="Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building" contentmodel="wikitext" pagelanguage="en" touched="2012-10-11T15:19:20Z" lastrevid="784213" counter="" length="41275" />
Does AncientPages go by last edit or date touched? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It goes by last edit. I see what you mean by "touched" now: I was assuming it just meant "last edit", but there is more to it than that.
This API query is interesting, if run repeatedly and when run on various different wikis (Spanish Wikibooks was just a random choice). You can see when pages were last touched and whether they have entries in the iwlinks table. So far I haven't found any anomalies (pages with pre-2011 touched dates that have interwiki links on the page but no iwlinks entries). This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As for your question about pages that were touched long ago, you could run an SQL query on labs.
MariaDB [eswikibooks_p]> select page_namespace, page_title, page_touched from p
age where( page_namespace = 0 or page_namespace = 4) and page_is_redirect = 0 o
rder by page_touched asc limit 10 \G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
page_namespace: 0
    page_title: Odontotutor/3334remanentesreformtallar
  page_touched: 20061121160001
This, that and the other (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This, that and the other: Thank you for the reply! That does seem to answer the question. Can you please verify that the following queries are correct?
MariaDB [metawiki_p]> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM iwlinks JOIN page ON page.page_id=iwlinks.iwl_from WHERE page.page_touched < 20100000000000 AND iwlinks.iwl_title IS NOT NULL \g
| COUNT(*) |
|       33 |
1 row in set (6.28 sec)
MariaDB [metawiki_p]> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM iwlinks JOIN page ON page.page_id=iwlinks.iwl_from WHERE page.page_touched > 20100000000000 AND iwlinks.iwl_title IS NOT NULL \g
| COUNT(*) |
| 22686477 |
1 row in set (30.96 sec)
Seems strange to me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The queries look right. You're right that it is strange. It would be great if we could get someone to effectively run lines 191-193 of includes/deferred/LinksUpdate.php on all pages across the WMF cluster (or at least all those created before 2011). Trouble is, that could take a long time, since it requires a full parse of each page in order to extract interwiki links. This, that and the other (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride, what do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
We should null edit every page. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
So there's no maintenance script for this? I'm not sure this is a good idea. Has it been done before? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing broken links

Can't we have someone design some sort of global bot to run along and change any of the 'interwiki prefixes' from [[prefix:foo]] to [http://whatever+foo foo] (or [https://whatever+foo baz] if [[prefix:foo|baz]]), then afterwards notify the larger communities like enwiki that the links will be deprecated? This bot will obviously ignore more complex coding like the iwlink being nested in a template, which would require a human check. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


link prefix:orain

It's a wiki-farm, though it is not linked much( w:Special:LinkSearch/* ) I think it might be useful having the interwiki map, since it is growing. --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see why, it doesn't seem like it so far contains any content of interest. --MF-W 15:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at requirements:
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects No (and this one is very important)
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects Yes (won't be spammed)
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) Yes (CC BY-SA 3.0 by default [18])
  4. be a wiki Yes obviously
  5. have reasonable amounts of content No (AFAICS)
  6. not contain malware Yes obviously
PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't say anything for 1 really but in regards to 5, since it is a wiki farm - the wikis in it count as content points. One to see is this wiki. A few others exist but probably not contributing anything to Wikimedia per se John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICS, that wiki seems to just be a MediaWiki fork of, which already has an interwiki prefix (tvtropes:). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Considering this. I would appreciate it if This, that and the other would comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that Wikia is in the interwiki map, while ShoutWiki is not, for whatever reason. From a content perspective, Orain presently seems closer to ShoutWiki than Wikia. I personally would be in favour of adding both ShoutWiki and Orain simply for completeness' sake, but that's just a personal thing and not necessarily supported by strong, accepted reasons.
On the technical side, interwiki links to individual Orain wikis appear impossible with their current setup. They need a central redirector like Wikia, or at least to put all their wikis on their interwiki map. This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Noting here that Orain seems to have been compromised with no stated date of revival: see [19]. Thanks, --L235 (talk) enwiki 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Closing per L235's comment above. Matiia (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

MBA Library

link:$1 prefix:mba:

  • provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects: see its usage in currently externallylinked pages in top20wikis
  • be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects:as above
  • be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license):In site's about page, it said content can be reused under GNU GFDL license, but at the bottom of every page of the site, it have the copyright icon and said all right reserved
  • be a wiki:Yes
  • have reasonable amounts of content:339 thousand articles contributed by 121 thousand users
  • not contain malware:no sign for malware included in it

C933103 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify the purpose of the site please. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a kind of business/tech wiki encyclopedia. I agree with C933103 that it certainly has a lot of content, but I can't help but wonder if this site's mission overlaps too much with Wikipedia's. I don't know why WMF wikis would be needing to link to this site, and indeed, only 3 articles on each of enwiki and zhwiki link to this site. This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a encyclopedia for economic/management aspect with the objective of creating/sharing knowledge of in this aspect. (does mission overlap prevent mediawiki creating interwiki link to the site?)(it had been discussed sometime ago to use some of its content onto chinese wikipedia but as far as i know it is not done because of its unclear copyright notice)C933103 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done for now. No consensus, not widely used. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't really imagine this website being useful enough to be listed as an interwiki link. It's basically a wiki devoted to a bunch of clubs in London. There are hundreds of local wikis on the internet, most of which cover a lot more (get it? "cover a lot more"? LOL). Anyway, this seems like someone's pet addition rather than a legitimately useful interwiki link. @Nemo: Do you want to see if it's actually in use anywhere? Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there's about 10 real uses (mostly on Should be easy to migrate. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Kaldari and PiRSquared17: Any updates? Can we remove it? — M 11:41, 06 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be easy to migrate to external links if you want. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose removal -- The above discussion seems to have missed the general-purpose BDSM encyclopedia aspect of the site, which will only grow in importance with the migration from "" to "". See etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping this in the interwiki map and at the same time updating the URL to$1. I think there is enough general-purpose content at the wiki to justify keeping it in the map - it certainly isn't just a "wiki devoted to a bunch of clubs in London". This, that and the other (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Glaisher: Any reason not to keep this and update the URL? Per my comment above, Kaldari's initial assertion is incorrect. This, that and the other (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Done now. diff --Glaisher (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Glaisher (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)