Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2021

< Talk:Interwiki map | Archives
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MarcoAurelio

Wikimania

wikimania.wikimedia.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wikimania.wikimedia.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
This section was archived on a request by: prefix added and conficting pages moved to use a dash instead of a colon --Nintendofan885 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • prefix: wikimania:

Just a request to add the "full version" of the name (wikimania:), to supplement the "short version" that already exists (wmania:). Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Quiddity:   loaded though not pushed to phabricator.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1= — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)}}

@Billinghurst: What about all the pages under Special:PrefixIndex/wikimania:? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I reckon that those pages can be moved to wmania: and put into the 2005: namespace, then we can fix the redirects  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
That would work. We could also keep them on Meta-Wiki and move them to subpages under Wikimania 2005 city, Wikimania 2005 meetings, etc. Which do you prefer? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I assume if most of these pages are external link targets, all these links will break, no matter if we move these pages elsewhere or not (provided we keep "wikimania:" as iw prefix for the new Wikimania wiki). I am also not quite sure that I understand the reason why they were left here on meta instead of wm2005:. Are they even older than the wiki? --Vogone (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To answer the last part of your comment: Based on the history of the Main Page, the revisions with the lowest ID numbers, and the early log entries, it looks like the Wikimania 2005 wiki was created sometime around 2 March 2005. (However, strangely, there is a single log entry from 2003 -- a bug? Seems like a DB error considering it is listed prior to the entry granting Elian sysop/crat access.) Many of these Meta-Wiki articles were created before that, such as Wikimania:Name/Vote from late October 2004. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The plan is for all the old wm20nn: wikis to be moved to wmania:20nn, so moving the existing pages, and creating suitable redirects seems the appropriate measure. Once moved, and required tweaks implemented, my plan is to write filters to pretty well shut down editing in the 20nn: namespaces anyway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

bibcode

For the bibcode prefix, please consider changing the target URL from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/$1 to https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/$1/abstract instead. As a test, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4513B generates an HTTP 301 redirect to https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4513B/abstract. For the Bibcode template on the English-language Wikipedia, I changed the template to use the new specified URL. (Hopefully, it should be possible to change the bibcode target URL on the interwiki map without raising any copyright issues with regard to copying content from the English Wikipedia.)

Test: bibcode:2018MNRAS.478.4513B

--Elegie (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 11:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 11:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

wmde

The website of Wikimedia Deutschland was changed from a MediaWiki to other forms years ago without creating referrers to the new places. Instead, some links even lead to wrong places like wmde:Präsidium. Therefore, as a fix, I propose to direct all links to the main page https://www.wikimedia.de without $1. Thanks, Martin Rulsch (WMDE) (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 11:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 11:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

wikidata.org (another linking)

wikidata.org is a data wiki for the WMF. I personally think wd: is a perfect choice, and it would be faster than wikidata: linking

wikidata.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wikidata.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

wikidata

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wikidata
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

Link: https://www.wikidata.org/$1 prefix:wd:

  2. stable link : https://www.wikidata.org/$1
  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site
    • You all know wikidata, no need to explain why we need a linking to it, and yes, I know there's already wikidata:, but I want to type that faster, so wd: would be a better choice
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
    • Wikidata is part of the WMF. It is not spam
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
    • Part of the Wikimedia Foundation. No need for a license
  4. be a wiki
    • yes
  5. have reasonable amounts of content
    • 92,721,940 content pages, and part of the Wikimedia Foundation.
  6. not contain malware
    • obviously no malware.

LightningComplexFire (talk · contribs · CA) (enwiki talk · enwiki contribs) 18:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is already d:. --MF-W 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 13:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

tyvawiki

Now of the form https://tyvawiki.org/index.php?title=$1 instead of http://tyvawiki.org/wiki/$1 Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

StrategyWiki

Please update interwiki for strategywiki: to point to https instead of http. http://strategywiki.org/wiki/$1 -> https://strategywiki.org/wiki/$1. -- Prod (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

secure.wikimedia.org

Provides remaining access to WMF projects not accessible with the current interwiki or provides access to pages not accessible in the normal manner (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1 would .

Samples: secure:wikipedia/en/api/ (secure:wikipedia/en/api/) and secure:wikimedia/api/wiki/Main_Page (secure:wikimedia/api/wiki/Main_Page). 54nd60x (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Creative, but secure.wikimedia.org is deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore. What's wrong with an external link in these cases? api.wikimedia.org should get its own interwiki whenever it goes live though. Legoktm (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: If secure.wikimedia.org is deprecated, is there a similar URL providing access to all Wikimedia projects? External links, in my opinion, are not the best when the link points to a URL on the same subdomain. As for api.wikimedia.org, I agree with you and that we don't need its interwiki right now at this moment. 54nd60x (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no single url. The modular links can be built. Deal with missing components as required and demonstrated needed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

en-simple

The language code generally associated with Simple Wikipedia (simplewiki) is "en-simple", not "simple" [1].

It would be easier if one could link simplewiki directly with a en-simple: prefix (that is without having to remap the result of the above query). -- Jura1 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The simple: interwiki is not defined here. The code w:simple: is shorter and works, why isn't it suitable?  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Aren't there a few interwikis defined for other languages, e.g. cz: for cs:?
The en-simple: would simplify things like [2]. Jura1 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how it is any different from any other wiki in how one would run reports. You need the two components of sister and interlanguage. If we start doing something there, where is the line drawn for any request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It's different as for all other languages one can just use the language code (schema:inLanguage). The config file calls that "Real ISO language codes to our fake ones". Somehow "en-simple" is missing there. Jura1 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The code via Phabricator: seems the best way to progress this so that it is installed in the right spot in the right way, especially as there are multiple "simple" to which this may apply.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I added a request at d:Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Add_"en-simple"_to_$languageAliases Jura1 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Patch can be found at phab:T283149. Jura1 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

sep11

Somehow this is odd. sep11: redirects to ia:. Maybe a parameter needs to be changed to configure it as an external wiki. Jura1 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done that is coded, so you will need to do a phabricator ticket. If it goes to IA then it is seemingly is a url redirect rule high up in some url rewrite schema. As I see it set in dumpInterwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lokalhistoriewiki.no

lokalhistoriewiki.no

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)lokalhistoriewiki.no
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

By my count, Lokalhistoriewiki.no is the fourth-largest Norwegian-language wiki (only behind the Norwegian Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedias and the Norwegian Wiktionary). It is maintained by the Institute of Local History, which is a department of the National Library of Norway. The subject of the wiki is local history, so there is naturally a big overlap between it and Wikipedia – indeed, there are currently 7304 Wikidata items (query) with a link to Lokalhistoriewiki; many (most?) of those items' articles in Norwegian Bokmål and Nynorsk Wikipedia link to it via the authority control template. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

seems to meet the criteria as I see it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  added not yet activated @Jon Harald Søby:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Jon Harald Søby:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata lexemes

Makes it easier to link to searches and point to results for words in Wikidata's lexeme namespace.

Samples: lexemes:find (lexemes:find) and lexemes:define (lexemes:define).

This would be similar to googledefine:, acronym:, dico:, dict:, dictionary:, onelook:, drae:, dpd:, mwot:, mwod:, revo:. -- Jura1 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  added not yet activated  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Jura1 and Matěj Suchánek:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mix-n-match catalog

It would be a convenient way to refer to Mix-M-Match catalogues (mainly at Wikidata). Mix-x-match is a Wikibase installation on toolforge to help expand Wikidata. It has been running for several years now.

I suppose "MxM" wouldn't be acceptable as it could theoretically conflict with a language code. Jura1 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you use the obvious mix-n-match or mixnmatch which will have no conflict? Is the use truly significant? Outside of Magnus's user namespace pages the linking doesn't seem significant. Seems like ~40 links only outside of MM's pages — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  added as mixnmatch and we can duplicate or replace it as something if not suitably; not yet activated  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Jura1:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

AtmWiki

No uses at all (at least at en. and de.) It is a very small wiki with its special interest focus on "Amateur Telescope Making". Its only german language. It includes just ~1000 articles. --Tommes (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We should remove it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Removed no replacement  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Tommes:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Boxrec

No uses at all (checked .en, .de, .it, .fr, .es, .ru) There are templates at least in both this Wikipedia languages. No need for. Clean the list please. --Tommes (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is also Wikidata property with 8000+ uses: BoxRec boxer ID (P1967) (see d:Property_talk:P1967).
Obviously, it's possible that people don't actively use that data, but I don't really see a need to "clean the list" (whatever that means). Jura1 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1: If there is no usage of the interwiki, and the preferred addition is through direct url templates, or through use of the WD with a full url, then what are we doing here?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the formatter of the prefix is different from the one on the property and templates (at least in some languages). It's possible that the prefix became useless as it was never updated. en:, fr:, ru:, de:

d:Property:P1967#P1630

Maybe a clean solution would be to change the formatter to http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/$1 and update the templates at Template:BoxRec (Q6724764) to use the prefix. This would also ensure that all switch to https at the same time. Jura1 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  changed to https://boxrec.com/en/boxer/$1 (note https) and we can review at another day its actual usage. At this stage still seems potential value through templates and WD. Not yet activated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  fixed thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

CKWiss

No uses at all I guess. No need. --Tommes (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We should remove it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Removed no replacement  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Tommes:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Le Dico des Ados

Hi, I would like to update the interwiki link for Le Dico des Ados (dico:). The url //dicoado.org/dico/$1 is now //fr.dicoado.org/dico/$1 (we moved to fr. to prepare for multilingual versions of the site). Best regards, Raphoraph (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Raphoraph: We can action that, though what is the long term plan for language pages. Are we setting up dico-fr ... dico-xx in the future. If yes, I would think that it is best to redirect and setup the French alternative now, so anyone who wishes to migrate can do so. Let us get that understanding and a gneral consensus to make things easier into the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  changed to fr subdomain; not yet activated. Leaving open for extended conversation about next steps.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't dicoado be more suitable as a prefix? "dico" could just be any dictionary (if it isn't wiktionary or Wikidata lexemes). Jura1 (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If we were adding new, most likely, as they exist and are updating, we are working with the dealt hand. Good points to discuss as part of the holistic review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done new: dicado => //fr.dicoado.org/dico/$1 ; existing dico => //dicoado.org/dico/$1 remains. DICO links to be replaced following implementation and the shortcut removed. Future conversations about the languages at a future point in time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done interwiki map rolled out @Raphoraph:

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated map

@Martin Urbanec: The list has been updated Special:diff/21467986 and Special:diff/21467998. Please could you wait twenty-four hours for any last minute appeals, and then implement. If a phabricator ticket is better, then happy to do so. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst Sure, I can run the script tomorrow or the day after, hopefully I won't forget. I mainly ran it yesterday for my own prefixes, which are needed to fix links coming from wmcz prefix. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Appreciate it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Libera Chat

As the freenode replacement per IRC GC's decision to migrate to Libera Chat and IRC/Migrating to Libera Chat. Legoktm (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also maybe updating the 'irc' prefix to also link to libera instead of freenode. --Zabe (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment @Legoktm and Zabe: While some may know to what you refer, others do not. I think that some links as background would be useful, especially to any consensus determination of what is happening and why the IRC is being changed. I also think that information like a timetable, and whether there is a progressive migration, or not. We need to remember the impact of "nowism" and consider that this will be archived and historical, and having that information is of value. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I added links to the original request with some more context. I am neutral on switching the "irc" prefix. Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we should wait with switching irc prefix, because the impact can't realy be estimated. But adding a new 'libera' prefix is definetly something we can do. --Zabe (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to put in both as that seems expedient, at least as a temporary measure. If there is any possibility that we are going to have something else with a libera prefix, eg. access to their webpages, or something, then we should use the longer version. If we are never going something different, then we can have the short version.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  added at special:diff/21482325, not yet activated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I filed phab:T283326 to get the map synced. Legoktm (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that we never added an interwiki prefix for Freenode's web pages, I think it's unlikely we'll want to do the same for Libera. The primary links to Libera will be the channels, so that should be the short version. If we do want interwiki links to their website (unnecessary IMO), it could be liberaweb or something. Legoktm (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Roger that, I have removed the longer form, and it can disappear gracefully at next update.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Actually we messed up, there are some page names that begin with "Libera:". Can we remove "Libera" and just have "LiberaChat"? Legoktm (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Changed libera to LiberaChat. --MF-W 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I just deployed the new interwiki map. Legoktm (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Legoktm (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikijunior

Wikijunior is a weird one: it's ostensibly a sister project but it's a subproject of Wikibooks. I think there's value in having a way to easily interlink to these various sistersubprojects. Is it feasible to have jr: and junior: as aliases to the different language editions via constructions like en:jr: or es:junior:. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please propose this in the format required. How can we judge the basis of an application in this form? No ability to judge the viability and requirement at this point. Have you considered setting up WJ: alias for the namespace? Seems to meet your needs, and would be able to be set up with a local WB consensus and a phab ticket. mw:Manual:$wgNamespaceAliases — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Since it's a namespace why not just, for example, use wikibooks:Wikijunior:The_Elements? Leaderboard (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jura1 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

vrt-wiki

vrt-wiki.wikimedia.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)vrt-wiki.wikimedia.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

Please create a new interwiki link for the newly-renamed vrt-wiki (Phabricator task for the rename). This is part of the ongoing VRT/VRTS migration. The old interwiki link can remain and redirect if possible. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Done Sgd. —Hasley 20:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mailman3

and

These are the Mailman3 equivalents for mail: and mailarchive:. Those two should not be removed as they are widely used and will still continue to redirect to the right place. CC Reedy who filed T283900. Legoktm (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

list: seems somewhat (too) generic.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/mediawiki-announce@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/H7VVI7Q3FIRLPTRPCCO77BHNL3LVWEYN/ might work better with a two part template:
{{kitty|mediawiki-announce|H7VVI7Q3FIRLPTRPCCO77BHNL3LVWEYN}}
-- Jura1 (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You can try it, mail:wikitech-l already redirects today. Most mailarchive links will also redirect to their versions in hyperkitty.
I don't want to use "hyperkitty" because it's not very obvious to users that's the name of the software. There are multiple types of hyperkitty links, the one I pasted is for a thread, but there are also ones for individual messages, or specific months.
Now that I think of it...we probably don't actually need to add a new interwiki for "list", we can just retarget what "mail" points to. I'll look into usage a bit more before I make that request. Legoktm (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Are the thread ids unique and is there a way to link them directly? Jura1 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't know what you mean about "link them directly". Legoktm (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Something like mailarchive-msg:H7VVI7Q3FIRLPTRPCCO77BHNL3LVWEYN for the sample above, without a list-specific path. Jura1 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That's not possible with our current Mailman setup. Legoktm (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Revisiting this, my proposal is: retarget "mail" to point to Mailman3. We already do this redirect server-side, so it won't break any links. We do need a different prefix for hyperkitty since the URL syntax is not compatible, for that we can use "listarchive". Legoktm (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  Support Quiddity (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Done the mail: one per @Legoktm as it is not expected to break anything with redirects being done server-side already. The archive links remain unmodified at this stage pending further discussion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio, given that no one else has commented, can we move forward with listarchive? Legoktm (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Fine by me. I guess there's no way to shorten the syntax for the interwiki link a bit, right? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  Added: diff. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

quarry.wmflabs.org -> quarry.wmcloud.org

Please update the quarry: prefix to use the new quarry.wmcloud.org domain instead of quarry.wmflabs.org. Quarry was recently moved to the newer wmcloud.org domain and all existing URLs redirect to the new domain. Thanks. Majavah (talk!) 09:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 12:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

DPLA

dp.la

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)dp.la
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

While not a wiki, this meets all the other criteria listed above. Similar to NARA, Worldcat, or a couple of other links already on this page, DPLA is an online GLAM catalog with millions of links in Wikimedia projects. All content on the site is CC0. Interwiki links help us put links in edit summaries and keep it under the character limit without using a full URL, and there will be millions of bot edits with these (for uploads and structured data). It would be useful to be able to use the dpla: prefix. Dominic (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Support Legoktm (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Small Projects in Spanish

wikisp.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wikisp.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

This wiki is a collaborative hub for the members of Wikimedia Small Projects in Spanish the newly recognized wikimedia user group, and some of the links are mostly used for our Newsletter. Thanks in advance. Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 17:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections in a couple of days, I'll proceed to add wikisp as requested. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  Added. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

The Wikipedia Library is a WMF program which provides free access to paywalled reliable sources. We now have a search feature and built a URL for accessing it directly. This has enabled, for example, English Wikipedia to add a direct link to the Find Sources template (see T294919). Adding TWL to the interwiki map has two use cases: 1) Users could link directly to a library search for a particular search term in discussions or templates more easily. 2) Per T296096, we dcan use this link for our notification, which will enable it to be marked as read correctly when clicked. Let me know if you have any questions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF) are you sure you want it to point to the search endpoint? The notification currently goes to "https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org", which you wouldn't be able to link to using the current proposed target. I think just having it point to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/$1 would be better, and if people want to link to a search, they can put that in the link part. Legoktm (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Legoktm: We have this set up so that if the interwiki link is blank, and the target therefore https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q= (I just fixed a missing ? above), the user is simply redirected to the homepage. Does that seem reasonable? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Samwalton9 (WMF): that seems reasonable, though when I visit that page I get "To view this link you need to be an eligible library user. Please login to continue.", which IMO shouldn't show up for people trying to visit the main page.
Anyways, bugs like that shouldn't block adding this to the interwiki map.   Support Legoktm (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Great point, I've filed T299037 but agree it shouldn't be a blocker :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Samwalton9 (WMF) & @Legoktm: So, would it be okay to add the interwiki link as currently proposed? twl = https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=$1 ? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Fine by me! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  Added. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

imdbcharacter

The "character"-..feature is not supported anymore. Any Links to http[s]://[www.]imdb.com/character/ch... get a 404-response. The amount of uses of imdbcharacter in en.wikipedia is 0, de.wikipedia 0, es.wikipedia 0, fr.wikipedia 0, it.wikipedia 0, ru.wikipedia 0, pl.wikipedia 0, etc. They have to get replaced by internet archive versions. --Tommes (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Add: Global Research: 78 in main article space, Global Search: 27 in templates. --Tommes (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Tommes: I am not prepared to redlink the template. We can push the interwiki to the root page, or another static page if you can identify something suitable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: aka sDrewth, I dont understand, what you want. Every link like https://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000164/ get a 404-response. There is no substitutes. What means "push the interwiki to the root page"? --Tommes (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tommes: Generally our choices are:
  1. Update the regex, though we need to have something that has a reliable pattern for the dynamic links; all good
  2. Remove, though this will call redlinks where used; ugly though we recommend the link removal prior to removal from the map
  3. Where we cannot match the regex there might be a good base or sub page where we can a create static link, no variable; however, it allow a good lead at the site; failing a good subpage we can just link to the domain (which is the root page of the domain)
  4. Where we cannot point to any sort of external link, then we have a static meta landing page which explains that the link is dead. Used when there are too many links to remove.
I was hoping that you could tell use how number 3 may work, as it seems that they must have some sort of alternate learning page, even as a static page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
billinghurst, I do not see, that there are lots of usage of imdbcharacter. I tried to delete some templates in other languages. But it is difficult with the languages. I edited lots of articles removing imdb character links. You could just set the imdbcharacter-Interwiki to the main page of imdb or leave it as it is. So user see it is not working. I prefer deleting at all, since just the service is not supported anymore. Why keep the code/alias word? --Tommes (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Seems like we should remove it. Usage in templates at wikis. All have now been tagged to delete. Let us leave wikis to resolve their templates, and review in a couple of weeks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated remainder of direct links with dead link, removal, or pinging an admin of the usage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: special:diff/24281289  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Infosecpedia

Site has been down every time I checked. It may be temporary but at least we should keep an eye on it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done links seem managed  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: special:diff/24281324  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Transclude field deprecated?

The Transclude field (the rightmost field in the two tables) on the interwiki data pages on en, de, meta, commons, and wikimania--and I suspect everywhere--display "-" on every line of each table.

But the the legend says the field should contain either yes or no.

Am I missing something or is something missing?

—CmdrDan (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@CmdrDan: That is not a function of this page, that is part of mw:Extension:Interwiki and should be addressed through a request at phabricator: tagging the extension.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

// ⇒ https://

Given WMF's preference for https://, I'd update all prefixes still using // to https://.

At list can be found at Wikidata (Complex_constraint_violations/P6720#//). Currently there are 30. -- Jura1 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Either won't make a difference if we are in https by default; or if they are in a place that does not allow https, then we are delivering them in the best protocol for their access. I don't see that we need to change these.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Isn't WMFs preference for https such that connections should generally be upgraded to https rather than http attempted (due to some error or intention). Jura1 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done without a community consensus  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

http:// ⇒ https://

Some prefixes still using http:// can probably be updated to https://.

There is a list at Wikidata (Complex_constraint_violations/P6720#http:) of prefixes that use http: while the official website of the item uses https:. Currently there are 157. It's possible that a few have a website that uses https, but the wiki still goes with http. -- Jura1 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have a list that need fixing, then please present an alphabetical list. We then have an record of what was requested and when. I am generally not volunteering to run through a list of what could be changes "just because".  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  Not done When a list is presented, we can fix a list with a record of what was done and why.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

developer.mozilla.org

developer.mozilla.org

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)developer.mozilla.org
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

I propose that the “devmo:” interwiki prefix be updated from “https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/$1” to “https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/$1”, so that the links work similarly to MediaWiki’s Special:MyLanguage. — ExE Boss (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Support EpicPupper (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ExE Boss: Would you please draw up some test cases / working examples of links and targets so we can demonstrate that you proposal will work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, on behalf of ExE Boss, here's an example language-agnostic link: https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/WebDriver. It will automatically redirect to the page in your preferred language. Cheers, EpicPupper (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  Done. Updated (diff). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Gyaanipedia

en.gyaanipedia.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)en.gyaanipedia.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
  • Link: https://en.gyaanipedia.com/wiki/$1
  • prefix: gyaanipedia
  • The Gyaanipedia is probably the largest Indian worldwide wiki and this English version is the largest among all Gyaanipedia wikis. If it will be added to the Interwiki tables then it will establish a good cooperation between these two sites. Now maybe it is few but in future there will be a huge amount of links between these two wikis example [7] So I think it should be added. Wikidata Google Knowledge Panel Central Site WikiApiary
  • We are always trusted not encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
  • We have free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
  • We are a wiki
  • We have more than 222k pages in English version and not contain malware. Pokai (talk)
@Pokai: Do you believe that it has, or will have, significant use? I cannot see how it will have a large amount of use as it is not a reliable source for citation purposes. So I am wondering the purpose for the linking. To add this I would want to see a significant level of support from the WPs to ensure that it is a needed interwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.. and d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q103839062 (d:Special:Permalink/1439162041#Q103839062). Jura1 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I am still do not see convincing argument for addition and search results don't give me a high confidence. Unless there is a community consensus to add, then I am inclined to close this as "not done"  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done no consensus for further addition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikifunctions

Although this project is not yet created, post here to allow enough time to resolve existing conflicts.--GZWDer (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment the single letter prefix codes (w/s/b/d/voy/wikt/q/n) have typically been setup inside other Wikimedia code rather than this interwiki map. (ideally for consistency the Commons c: shortcut should be in the same place). Wikifunctions shortcut would indeed be here, is that the agreed name? I would hope that such a proposal for the name would come be a consensus resolution at the Abstract Wikipedia discussion. I would suggest get your single letter interwiki set up first as part of the construct, and we can code the word interwiki when things are settled.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@GZWDer: user:Zabe points to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/WikimediaMaintenance/+/refs/heads/master/dumpInterwiki.php#70 for the place with all the action.  — billinghurst sDrewth

  Comment @GZWDer and Zabe: Is this still required? Have you managed to get this to be considered in the general wikimedia maintenance code? Can it be handled through phabricator request as part of that creation series if that is the case?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have filed phab:T325908. GZWDer (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
See phab:T325910, a subtask, as well. EpicPupper (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  not done through this function instead to be implemented through WikimediaMaintenance code.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Language are set to English for wmf wikis

  • wikiquote • global-search - wikiquote: 4,024
  • Wikiquote • global-search - Wikiquote: 68,986
  • wikibooks • global-search - wikibooks: 6,491
  • Wikibooks • global-search - Wikibooks: 70,803
  • IW check · GlobalSearch check - wikipedia: (timeout)
  • IW check · GlobalSearch check - Wikipedia: 33,740,456
  • ..


  Comment @Vis M: Use the shorter interwikis they are designed for such use, and are language relative at the wikis of use (use the base language of the wiki where they are linked)

  • w: for wikipedias
  • n: for wikinews
  • s: for wikisources
  • q: for wikiquote
  • b: for wikibooks
  • c: for wikicommons
  • d: for wikidata
  • v: for wikiversity
  • wikt: for wiktionary
  • voy: for wikivoyages

The coded interwikis you list are old in usage and of their time. Changing that now will likely break things, and I would be extremely reticent to do that without a broad discussion with xwiki participants; some evidence of no problems being created; and a clear consensus to do such a change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that the existing interwikis like Wikiquote: can be language differentiated, eg. Wikiquote:es:…  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done Proposal for removal alone is likely to break things, so needs a greater scoped exercise. I would expect to see all updates of usages undertaken to modern interwiki syntax prior to any proposal being undertaken.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR

I came here to suggest a mapping for https://www.jstor.org/stable/$1, to allow interwiki links to articles and books in w:JSTOR, such as item 1234567 (a made-up number), especially from edit summaries. I see now that this would not be appropriate, as JSTOR is not a wiki (criterion 5) and is not generally compatibly licensed (criterion 4). I also see that there is a JSTOR: mapping already, merely for linking to JSTOR catalogue entries for journals, such as https://www.jstor.org/journals/science ([[JSTOR:science]]), which I would think also fails the current criteria 4 and 5. Would I be right in thinking that this JSTOR: is a legacy mapping that would not be added if it were proposed nowadays? If not, that is, if it would be acceptable even nowadays, would criteria 4 and 5 not actually bar a mapping for JSTOR articles? —2d37 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


@2d37: As noted we already have a JSTOR existing and it is set for journals http://www.jstor.org/journals/$1 and from the page history it looks to be a 2005/6 addition.

I would have no qualms about adding something for a stable jstor url, as we seem to have plenty of usage [9]. I will note however that it would be somewhat redundant as most wikis have accomplished exactly what you are wanting through their use of a template [10] => Template:JSTOR (Q9631164)

The criteria you cite is guidance, and we have taken a sensible interpretation of its usage => Help:Interwiki linking  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I agree that projects' JSTOR templates make an interwiki mapping for JSTOR articles mostly unnecessary. My proposal was motivated by contexts where templates are unavailable, such as edit summaries: so that one could link directly to a JSTOR article that is not directly cited in a wiki article that one's editing but is relevant to one's edit. Compared to saying something like "(see the JSTOR link I posted on the talk page)", including the link directly in the edit summary would make it easier and more likely for other editors, who are evaluating the edit, to look at the JSTOR article. —2d37 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  no consensus and closing without prejudice to reopening. No further community comment, nor action. No clear need demonstrated for the community to reach consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (re-addition proposal)

(Comments by Casspedia and Kip the Dip, transcribed by Casspedia re recent removal.)

Re removal: I believe that the bias that Ekips39 has in this proposal, per Isarra, is to be noted. This consensus feels very thin, and is based upon one user actively pushing for its removal. Uncyclopedia has had its fair share of bigotry in the past, but, to my knowledge at least, is currently in the process of redeeming itself; attempting to use IRC conversations as an excuse for delisting an entire website (per Ekips39) amounts to nothing but a massive exaggeration and a direct attempt at attacking Uncyclopedia itself. Considering how it is now fairly established that en.uncyclopedia.co is the primary Uncyclopedia (the Wikia distinction no longer being a problem), and how Uncyclopedia has several multilingual variants, it would only make sense to reinstate the interwiki. Interwikis are meant for easy access to sites, and are not based on its content; For Uncyclopedia, the same applies. Casspedia (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, to note: many of the former removals were based more on technicalities (e.g. uncyclopedia.org migrating to Wikia, and its subsequent exodus); the lack of technicalities plus the sheer amount of time since consensus was seemingly established is also to note. Casspedia (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As for the significant use clause... there are a fair share of Uncyclopedia users on Wikimedia Foundation-owned websites. One of Wikipedia's userboxes for Uncyclopedian accounts has about sixty transclusions; there most likely are many more. This removal feels unjustified at best, to be honest; there is a fair overlap between Uncyclopedia users and Wikimedia Foundation users, and allowing this interwiki to properly exist will enable Uncyclopedia users on Wikimedia websites to still refer to themselves and/or their articles on Uncyclopedia easily. Casspedia (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Taking all of the above that I wrote into consideration, I'm strongly against the removal of Uncyclopedia interwikis from Wikimedia Foundation websites. I strongly hope that this decision is reconsidered and the interwiki is reinstated. Casspedia (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to address two points that Ekips39 made about Uncyclopedia's alleged bigotry. While it is true that we've attracted our fair share of questionable and 'edgy' humor over the years, we've been actively working to amend it in recent years. I myself attempted to start an annual project dedicated to removing racism and other bigoted forms of humor throughout the site last January. Meanwhile, over this spring alone the admins have put in efforts to deal with the androcentric nature of the site, as well as an official set of policies on how to be respectful towards transgender people. Which brings me to my next point. Ekips39 claimed:
"It is highly male-dominated, as can be seen from their active admins page which lists several self-identified men but no self-identified women."
While this was true in 2018, if you go to the active admins page right now, 2 out of 3 of the current active bureaucrats happen to be women. Meanwhile, we've been brainstorming ideas amongst ourselves ways to bring in more female users to our site. On the issue of Uncyclopedia being regressive or indulging in bigoted humor, ekips39's claims are either outdated, or actively being remedied by our most active admins. --Kip the Dip (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments above were transcribed from removal thread, following suggestion from billinghurst in order to ensure clean eyes on this conversation. Casspedia (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment linking previous conversation special:permalink/21483086#Uncyclopedia  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment 'Bias' is an extreme understatment. Ekips39, under various names, had gone on a veritable crusade to attack me and the projects I host, included repeated defamation of me personally as well as my work, both on public sites with various outright lies, and in more private conversations where I later learned I was often the subject of repeated slander and insults. I don't really feel comfortable getting into this again, but suffice to say if Uncyc was so 'male-dominated' at the time, I have to wonder if Ekips39 was going after the other women like they did with me. And even if it was just me, to date I still have no idea why or what I might have done to 'deserve' any of this. -— Isarra ༆ 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically I was trying to be diplomatic and stay out of it before, especially given the sheer amount of harassment I was already facing. But I kind of agree that that doesn't really look like a consensus in any direction, especially given only three people not involved in some way even commented, and while one did vote to remove based on the links not working, the interwiki never pointed to the url that went down to begin with.
But I would vote to keep if it came to it, as Uncyclopedia is a multilingual project with a rich history very intertwined with the english Wikipedia in particular. And it can make linking technical examples on mw.org and the like a little easier, too, given how involved our development side has been with a lot of widely used extensions and tools, not that it's exactly odd at all to also just dump entire links to whatever into the templates there either. -— Isarra ༆ 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Think that the best way to progress the conversation is to the criteria (7 dot points) at #Proposed additions. Please take the people out of it. How does that sound?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds alright. Here are the answers to the seven dot points as specified above:
  • 1. Uncyclopedia is useful on a significant number of pages. First of all, it is very often used on user space, since Uncyclopedia's community is intertwined with Wikipedia's. Second, quite a few extensions have been developed specifically for Uncyclopedia, and as such it would be especially useful to have on the MediaWiki wiki since examples can often refer to Uncyclopedia: an example of this is mw:Extension:LogoFunctions. Third, some of Uncyclopedia's style guides and policies, e.g. HTBFANJS, are referenced on the English Wikipedia, and can be invoked in several different areas of Wikipedia project space.
  • 2. The second reason of point 1 would be the most obvious example of this, to me at least. As a wiki, and one where development does actively happen, it would only make sense to share much of Uncyclopedia's stuff with Wikimedia projects and vice versa.
  • 3. I think this has already been established prior to Uncyclopedia's removal. Uncyclopedia can be trusted to not vandalise Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation websites.
  • 4. English Uncyclopedia is currently licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, with other multilingual versions using other licenses (e.g. French Uncyclopedia uses the GNU FDL).
  • 5. Uncyclopedia is a wiki, if that wasn't obvious enough.
  • 6. English Uncyclopedia has ~36,500 content pages and about 350,000 total pages. I think that's enough.
  • 7. Uncyclopedia does not contain malware, and users attempting to link to malware are promptly banned.
I hope this answers all the points specified above. It is also to note that Uncyclopedia has been remarkably stable, having existed for more than 16 years as a wiki. It can be safely expected that Uncyclopedia will continue remaining a fixture on the Internet, and won't become some sort of landing page. Casspedia (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
If not for the people, then why was it removed? That seems pertinent, though if it now must be re-justified to revert this, then see above. Many extant interwikis could potentially be far more difficult to justify under the current guidelines, but provide links to content of all kinds and of myriad uses to various projects and languages here, and as such likewise continue to be useful and in no way a meaningful hazard to the movement to maintain. -— Isarra ༆ 04:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment If the interwiki links are to be restored they should show both Uncyclopedias: en.uncyclopedia.co and uncyclopedia.ca. I am an administrator on the later. --Gepid (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gepid: Why? What? How? Some (many?) have no particular idea about uncyclopedia, and personally, no particular interest. So please give a waaay better explanation of what you are proposing and why.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The current entry for Uncyclopedia on wikipedia (as the date of this message),acknowledges thay there are two active English language Uncyclopedias. Both are forks of the original uncyclopedia.wikia.com that was hosted by Wikia/Fandom until May 2019. en.uncyclopedia.co forked in January 2013 and uncyclopedia.ca forked in May 2019 when Wikia/Fandom gave notice they would cease to host the website. So if the interwiki links are to be restored, I would presume this plurarity of uncyclopedias would have to be incorporated in a restored interwiki table. Hope that is clearer. --Gepid (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is the thing: the interwiki link was formerly applicable for en.uncyclopedia.co only, and said Uncyclopedia gets significantly more activity (151 active users on .co, 25 active users on .ca: a 6x difference in favor of .co). I believe that adding .ca (also known as en-gb) should be done using multilingual Uncyclopedia links, if possible, with en.uncyclopedia.co at the forefront owing to it being still the most prominent English-language Uncyclopedia during effectively the entirety of .ca's existence. Casspedia (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I think for compatibility reasons, uncyclopedia and uncyc could go to .co, with uncyc-gb for .ca and uncyc-AA format interwikis for the most prominent non-English Uncyclopedias. Casspedia (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I skimmed the removal discussion and it seemed to only have one support vote from MarcoAurelio ("Wiki is now closed/deleted. Interwiki link just do not work."), but I think this is no longer true? https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Nobody_cares seems to work fine now anyway. It seems goofy to not remove the prefix entirely if we're going to stop supporting it. Pointing the prefix to Meta-Wiki is a silly half-measure—if we're gonna break the links, break them. At least then people might fix them, marking them red is a feature. I would personally re-add the prefix to avoid needlessly breaking the links, but I'm also sympathetic to the idea that all interwiki prefixes are stupid and we should just switch to the full URLs (or make an "unc" template if you must). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I find Casspedia's points persuasive, and find the use of (assumed) gender balance as a reason for removal to be rather offensive and inconsistent with the UCoC. The link should not have been removed, and should be restored. Just uncyclopedia.co; no need to complicate things with a less popular fork/parallel wiki. If someone wants to create a prefix for .ca, that can be a separate proposal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support readdition; it does not really make sense to me why it was removed in the first place (besides a discussion which was, to be charitable, attended lightly). The arguments in this thread make even less sense, per what Tamzin has said. JPxG (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support for the listed, originally-linked URL (which remains more active than the other wiki, and up to date with security patches vs. a year out of date). Right now there are 605 links across Wikimedia sites that could go to a more useful place than they do now, and we should fix that. GreenReaper (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Should not have been removed. Zombiebaron (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Support I do not think Uncyclopedia should have been removed from the interwiki prefix to start with. It is a parody project that has gotten lots of attention on WM projects and it should be treated as such. Aasim 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Comment

 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment current proposal is to re-add the previous interwiki which is still in use, I would propose that we would remove the text on the discontinued page. Last chance for comment about what should happen.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done and corresponding text removed from Interwiki map/discontinued  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

XKCD

xkcd.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)xkcd.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)


explainxkcd.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)explainxkcd.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

XKCD is linked extensively across Wikimedia projects. Many comics have been properly licensed and uploaded to Commons, others are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, Wikidata has an extensive catalog of entries for the comics, and editors occasionally refer to particular pages in discussions. An interwiki prefix would make Commons attribution, Wikidata and article links, and discussion links more simple to produce and maintain. I also suggest the companion wiki, explainxkcd.com, which is linked less frequently but still substantially across projects. It has a lot of content, is freely licensed, and may be useful for wikipedias and commons in conjunction with the main interwiki prefix. Wugapodes (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Support Legoktm (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  Support —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  Support EpicPupper (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Support for xkcd: and conditional support for explainxkcd.com as long as a more explicit prefix than exkcd is used. I'd just go with explainxkcd: --Waldyrious (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment former domain has many uses, the latter has more limited. There is no objections and support from experienced wikimedians, so I propose to add these two in the next batch, unless there is further comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done per special:diff/25108759  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Gyaanipedia

en.gyaanipedia.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)en.gyaanipedia.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)
  • Link: https://en.gyaanipedia.com/wiki/$1
  • prefix: gyaanipedia
  • The Gyaanipedia is probably the largest Indian worldwide wiki and this English version is the largest among all Gyaanipedia wikis. If it will be added to the Interwiki tables then it will establish a good cooperation between these two sites. Now maybe it is few but in future there will be a huge amount of links between these two wikis example [13] So I think it should be added. Wikidata Google Knowledge Panel Central Site WikiApiary
  • We are always trusted not encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
  • We have free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
  • We are a wiki
  • We have more than 222k pages in English version and not contain malware. Pokai (talk)
@Pokai: Do you believe that it has, or will have, significant use? I cannot see how it will have a large amount of use as it is not a reliable source for citation purposes. So I am wondering the purpose for the linking. To add this I would want to see a significant level of support from the WPs to ensure that it is a needed interwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.. and d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q103839062 (d:Special:Permalink/1439162041#Q103839062). Jura1 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I am still do not see convincing argument for addition and search results don't give me a high confidence. Unless there is a community consensus to add, then I am inclined to close this as "not done"  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done no consensus for further addition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikifunctions

Although this project is not yet created, post here to allow enough time to resolve existing conflicts.--GZWDer (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment the single letter prefix codes (w/s/b/d/voy/wikt/q/n) have typically been setup inside other Wikimedia code rather than this interwiki map. (ideally for consistency the Commons c: shortcut should be in the same place). Wikifunctions shortcut would indeed be here, is that the agreed name? I would hope that such a proposal for the name would come be a consensus resolution at the Abstract Wikipedia discussion. I would suggest get your single letter interwiki set up first as part of the construct, and we can code the word interwiki when things are settled.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@GZWDer: user:Zabe points to https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/WikimediaMaintenance/+/refs/heads/master/dumpInterwiki.php#70 for the place with all the action.  — billinghurst sDrewth

  Comment @GZWDer and Zabe: Is this still required? Have you managed to get this to be considered in the general wikimedia maintenance code? Can it be handled through phabricator request as part of that creation series if that is the case?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have filed phab:T325908. GZWDer (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
See phab:T325910, a subtask, as well. EpicPupper (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  not done through this function instead to be implemented through WikimediaMaintenance code.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Language are set to English for wmf wikis

  • wikiquote • global-search - wikiquote: 4,024
  • Wikiquote • global-search - Wikiquote: 68,986
  • wikibooks • global-search - wikibooks: 6,491
  • Wikibooks • global-search - Wikibooks: 70,803
  • IW check · GlobalSearch check - wikipedia: (timeout)
  • IW check · GlobalSearch check - Wikipedia: 33,740,456
  • ..


  Comment @Vis M: Use the shorter interwikis they are designed for such use, and are language relative at the wikis of use (use the base language of the wiki where they are linked)

  • w: for wikipedias
  • n: for wikinews
  • s: for wikisources
  • q: for wikiquote
  • b: for wikibooks
  • c: for wikicommons
  • d: for wikidata
  • v: for wikiversity
  • wikt: for wiktionary
  • voy: for wikivoyages

The coded interwikis you list are old in usage and of their time. Changing that now will likely break things, and I would be extremely reticent to do that without a broad discussion with xwiki participants; some evidence of no problems being created; and a clear consensus to do such a change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I will also note that the existing interwikis like Wikiquote: can be language differentiated, eg. Wikiquote:es:…  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done Proposal for removal alone is likely to break things, so needs a greater scoped exercise. I would expect to see all updates of usages undertaken to modern interwiki syntax prior to any proposal being undertaken.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR

I came here to suggest a mapping for https://www.jstor.org/stable/$1, to allow interwiki links to articles and books in w:JSTOR, such as item 1234567 (a made-up number), especially from edit summaries. I see now that this would not be appropriate, as JSTOR is not a wiki (criterion 5) and is not generally compatibly licensed (criterion 4). I also see that there is a JSTOR: mapping already, merely for linking to JSTOR catalogue entries for journals, such as https://www.jstor.org/journals/science ([[JSTOR:science]]), which I would think also fails the current criteria 4 and 5. Would I be right in thinking that this JSTOR: is a legacy mapping that would not be added if it were proposed nowadays? If not, that is, if it would be acceptable even nowadays, would criteria 4 and 5 not actually bar a mapping for JSTOR articles? —2d37 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


@2d37: As noted we already have a JSTOR existing and it is set for journals http://www.jstor.org/journals/$1 and from the page history it looks to be a 2005/6 addition.

I would have no qualms about adding something for a stable jstor url, as we seem to have plenty of usage [15]. I will note however that it would be somewhat redundant as most wikis have accomplished exactly what you are wanting through their use of a template [16] => Template:JSTOR (Q9631164)

The criteria you cite is guidance, and we have taken a sensible interpretation of its usage => Help:Interwiki linking  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I agree that projects' JSTOR templates make an interwiki mapping for JSTOR articles mostly unnecessary. My proposal was motivated by contexts where templates are unavailable, such as edit summaries: so that one could link directly to a JSTOR article that is not directly cited in a wiki article that one's editing but is relevant to one's edit. Compared to saying something like "(see the JSTOR link I posted on the talk page)", including the link directly in the edit summary would make it easier and more likely for other editors, who are evaluating the edit, to look at the JSTOR article. —2d37 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  no consensus and closing without prejudice to reopening. No further community comment, nor action. No clear need demonstrated for the community to reach consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

XKCD

xkcd.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)xkcd.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)


explainxkcd.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)explainxkcd.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

XKCD is linked extensively across Wikimedia projects. Many comics have been properly licensed and uploaded to Commons, others are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, Wikidata has an extensive catalog of entries for the comics, and editors occasionally refer to particular pages in discussions. An interwiki prefix would make Commons attribution, Wikidata and article links, and discussion links more simple to produce and maintain. I also suggest the companion wiki, explainxkcd.com, which is linked less frequently but still substantially across projects. It has a lot of content, is freely licensed, and may be useful for wikipedias and commons in conjunction with the main interwiki prefix. Wugapodes (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Support Legoktm (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  Support —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  Support EpicPupper (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  Support for xkcd: and conditional support for explainxkcd.com as long as a more explicit prefix than exkcd is used. I'd just go with explainxkcd: --Waldyrious (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment former domain has many uses, the latter has more limited. There is no objections and support from experienced wikimedians, so I propose to add these two in the next batch, unless there is further comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done per special:diff/25108759  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (re-addition proposal)

(Comments by Casspedia and Kip the Dip, transcribed by Casspedia re recent removal.)

Re removal: I believe that the bias that Ekips39 has in this proposal, per Isarra, is to be noted. This consensus feels very thin, and is based upon one user actively pushing for its removal. Uncyclopedia has had its fair share of bigotry in the past, but, to my knowledge at least, is currently in the process of redeeming itself; attempting to use IRC conversations as an excuse for delisting an entire website (per Ekips39) amounts to nothing but a massive exaggeration and a direct attempt at attacking Uncyclopedia itself. Considering how it is now fairly established that en.uncyclopedia.co is the primary Uncyclopedia (the Wikia distinction no longer being a problem), and how Uncyclopedia has several multilingual variants, it would only make sense to reinstate the interwiki. Interwikis are meant for easy access to sites, and are not based on its content; For Uncyclopedia, the same applies. Casspedia (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, to note: many of the former removals were based more on technicalities (e.g. uncyclopedia.org migrating to Wikia, and its subsequent exodus); the lack of technicalities plus the sheer amount of time since consensus was seemingly established is also to note. Casspedia (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As for the significant use clause... there are a fair share of Uncyclopedia users on Wikimedia Foundation-owned websites. One of Wikipedia's userboxes for Uncyclopedian accounts has about sixty transclusions; there most likely are many more. This removal feels unjustified at best, to be honest; there is a fair overlap between Uncyclopedia users and Wikimedia Foundation users, and allowing this interwiki to properly exist will enable Uncyclopedia users on Wikimedia websites to still refer to themselves and/or their articles on Uncyclopedia easily. Casspedia (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Taking all of the above that I wrote into consideration, I'm strongly against the removal of Uncyclopedia interwikis from Wikimedia Foundation websites. I strongly hope that this decision is reconsidered and the interwiki is reinstated. Casspedia (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to address two points that Ekips39 made about Uncyclopedia's alleged bigotry. While it is true that we've attracted our fair share of questionable and 'edgy' humor over the years, we've been actively working to amend it in recent years. I myself attempted to start an annual project dedicated to removing racism and other bigoted forms of humor throughout the site last January. Meanwhile, over this spring alone the admins have put in efforts to deal with the androcentric nature of the site, as well as an official set of policies on how to be respectful towards transgender people. Which brings me to my next point. Ekips39 claimed:
"It is highly male-dominated, as can be seen from their active admins page which lists several self-identified men but no self-identified women."
While this was true in 2018, if you go to the active admins page right now, 2 out of 3 of the current active bureaucrats happen to be women. Meanwhile, we've been brainstorming ideas amongst ourselves ways to bring in more female users to our site. On the issue of Uncyclopedia being regressive or indulging in bigoted humor, ekips39's claims are either outdated, or actively being remedied by our most active admins. --Kip the Dip (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments above were transcribed from removal thread, following suggestion from billinghurst in order to ensure clean eyes on this conversation. Casspedia (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment linking previous conversation special:permalink/21483086#Uncyclopedia  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment 'Bias' is an extreme understatment. Ekips39, under various names, had gone on a veritable crusade to attack me and the projects I host, included repeated defamation of me personally as well as my work, both on public sites with various outright lies, and in more private conversations where I later learned I was often the subject of repeated slander and insults. I don't really feel comfortable getting into this again, but suffice to say if Uncyc was so 'male-dominated' at the time, I have to wonder if Ekips39 was going after the other women like they did with me. And even if it was just me, to date I still have no idea why or what I might have done to 'deserve' any of this. -— Isarra ༆ 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically I was trying to be diplomatic and stay out of it before, especially given the sheer amount of harassment I was already facing. But I kind of agree that that doesn't really look like a consensus in any direction, especially given only three people not involved in some way even commented, and while one did vote to remove based on the links not working, the interwiki never pointed to the url that went down to begin with.
But I would vote to keep if it came to it, as Uncyclopedia is a multilingual project with a rich history very intertwined with the english Wikipedia in particular. And it can make linking technical examples on mw.org and the like a little easier, too, given how involved our development side has been with a lot of widely used extensions and tools, not that it's exactly odd at all to also just dump entire links to whatever into the templates there either. -— Isarra ༆ 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Think that the best way to progress the conversation is to the criteria (7 dot points) at #Proposed additions. Please take the people out of it. How does that sound?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds alright. Here are the answers to the seven dot points as specified above:
  • 1. Uncyclopedia is useful on a significant number of pages. First of all, it is very often used on user space, since Uncyclopedia's community is intertwined with Wikipedia's. Second, quite a few extensions have been developed specifically for Uncyclopedia, and as such it would be especially useful to have on the MediaWiki wiki since examples can often refer to Uncyclopedia: an example of this is mw:Extension:LogoFunctions. Third, some of Uncyclopedia's style guides and policies, e.g. HTBFANJS, are referenced on the English Wikipedia, and can be invoked in several different areas of Wikipedia project space.
  • 2. The second reason of point 1 would be the most obvious example of this, to me at least. As a wiki, and one where development does actively happen, it would only make sense to share much of Uncyclopedia's stuff with Wikimedia projects and vice versa.
  • 3. I think this has already been established prior to Uncyclopedia's removal. Uncyclopedia can be trusted to not vandalise Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation websites.
  • 4. English Uncyclopedia is currently licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, with other multilingual versions using other licenses (e.g. French Uncyclopedia uses the GNU FDL).
  • 5. Uncyclopedia is a wiki, if that wasn't obvious enough.
  • 6. English Uncyclopedia has ~36,500 content pages and about 350,000 total pages. I think that's enough.
  • 7. Uncyclopedia does not contain malware, and users attempting to link to malware are promptly banned.
I hope this answers all the points specified above. It is also to note that Uncyclopedia has been remarkably stable, having existed for more than 16 years as a wiki. It can be safely expected that Uncyclopedia will continue remaining a fixture on the Internet, and won't become some sort of landing page. Casspedia (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
If not for the people, then why was it removed? That seems pertinent, though if it now must be re-justified to revert this, then see above. Many extant interwikis could potentially be far more difficult to justify under the current guidelines, but provide links to content of all kinds and of myriad uses to various projects and languages here, and as such likewise continue to be useful and in no way a meaningful hazard to the movement to maintain. -— Isarra ༆ 04:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment If the interwiki links are to be restored they should show both Uncyclopedias: en.uncyclopedia.co and uncyclopedia.ca. I am an administrator on the later. --Gepid (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gepid: Why? What? How? Some (many?) have no particular idea about uncyclopedia, and personally, no particular interest. So please give a waaay better explanation of what you are proposing and why.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The current entry for Uncyclopedia on wikipedia (as the date of this message),acknowledges thay there are two active English language Uncyclopedias. Both are forks of the original uncyclopedia.wikia.com that was hosted by Wikia/Fandom until May 2019. en.uncyclopedia.co forked in January 2013 and uncyclopedia.ca forked in May 2019 when Wikia/Fandom gave notice they would cease to host the website. So if the interwiki links are to be restored, I would presume this plurarity of uncyclopedias would have to be incorporated in a restored interwiki table. Hope that is clearer. --Gepid (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is the thing: the interwiki link was formerly applicable for en.uncyclopedia.co only, and said Uncyclopedia gets significantly more activity (151 active users on .co, 25 active users on .ca: a 6x difference in favor of .co). I believe that adding .ca (also known as en-gb) should be done using multilingual Uncyclopedia links, if possible, with en.uncyclopedia.co at the forefront owing to it being still the most prominent English-language Uncyclopedia during effectively the entirety of .ca's existence. Casspedia (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I think for compatibility reasons, uncyclopedia and uncyc could go to .co, with uncyc-gb for .ca and uncyc-AA format interwikis for the most prominent non-English Uncyclopedias. Casspedia (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I skimmed the removal discussion and it seemed to only have one support vote from MarcoAurelio ("Wiki is now closed/deleted. Interwiki link just do not work."), but I think this is no longer true? https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Nobody_cares seems to work fine now anyway. It seems goofy to not remove the prefix entirely if we're going to stop supporting it. Pointing the prefix to Meta-Wiki is a silly half-measure—if we're gonna break the links, break them. At least then people might fix them, marking them red is a feature. I would personally re-add the prefix to avoid needlessly breaking the links, but I'm also sympathetic to the idea that all interwiki prefixes are stupid and we should just switch to the full URLs (or make an "unc" template if you must). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I find Casspedia's points persuasive, and find the use of (assumed) gender balance as a reason for removal to be rather offensive and inconsistent with the UCoC. The link should not have been removed, and should be restored. Just uncyclopedia.co; no need to complicate things with a less popular fork/parallel wiki. If someone wants to create a prefix for .ca, that can be a separate proposal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support readdition; it does not really make sense to me why it was removed in the first place (besides a discussion which was, to be charitable, attended lightly). The arguments in this thread make even less sense, per what Tamzin has said. JPxG (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support for the listed, originally-linked URL (which remains more active than the other wiki, and up to date with security patches vs. a year out of date). Right now there are 605 links across Wikimedia sites that could go to a more useful place than they do now, and we should fix that. GreenReaper (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Should not have been removed. Zombiebaron (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Support I do not think Uncyclopedia should have been removed from the interwiki prefix to start with. It is a parody project that has gotten lots of attention on WM projects and it should be treated as such. Aasim 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Comment

 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment current proposal is to re-add the previous interwiki which is still in use, I would propose that we would remove the text on the discontinued page. Last chance for comment about what should happen.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done and corresponding text removed from Interwiki map/discontinued  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2021&oldid=26652122"
Return to "Interwiki map/Archives/2021" page.