Talk:Interwiki map

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Tryvix1509 in topic Proposed additions
Requests and proposals Interwiki map Archives (current)→

The associated page is used by the MediaWiki software to add and remove interwiki link prefixes (such as [[w:blah]] to "blah" on Wikipedia). Any Meta-Wiki administrator can edit the interwiki map. It is synced to the Wikimedia cluster every few weeks. Please post comments to the appropriate section (Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Requests for updates, Troubleshooting, or Other discussions); read the boxes at the top of each for an explanation. Completed requests are moved to the archives.

Instructions to Meta-Wiki administrators


Update logs

Due to limited search functionality, you will need to check both log searches.

Current map in the configuration

  • You can check here the current map as existing on the Wikimedia configuration files.
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days.

Proposed additionsEdit

  The Interwiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis and free content.

This section is for proposing a new interwiki link prefix. Interwiki prefixes should be reserved for websites that would be useful on a significant number of pages ({{LinkSummary}} can help). Websites useful only to a few pages should be linked to with the usual external link syntax. Please don't propose additions of sites with too few pages or that contain copyright infringing content, such as YouTube. As a guide, sites considered for inclusion would:

  1. be useful on a significant number of pages
  2. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site
  3. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
  4. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
  5. be a wiki
  6. have reasonable amounts of content
  7. not contain malware

Add new entries at the bottom of the section. When requesting a new prefix, please explain why it would be useful keeping the above in mind. Admins, please allow consensus to form (or at least no objections to be raised over a period of a few days) before adding new entries, as once added they are hard to remove from the many copies around the world. Before adding a new entry to the interwiki map, use this tool to check whether any existing page names conflict with the proposed prefix.

Requests for removal should be submitted on the talk page in the removals section and will be decided on by a Meta admin.


WikiTrek is an open project aimed to convert it:HyperTrek from a custom-made dynamic site to a wiki based on MediaWiki.
HyperTrek is the most comprehensive guide to en:Star Trek in Italian, but it is no longer actively maintained. To update the site, improve collaboration and simplify contributions, all the data have been transferred from the old site to new wiki. This wiki already has several contributors and we think the user base will increase in due time.

Italian Wikipedia already tooks data from Hypertrek, but it does not make sense to duplicate that information: this is lenghty manual process. With this conversion, the content of the site was automatically converted to a MediaWiki site and, implementing this interwiki link, all the content con be linked directly from Wikipedia. So users an take advantage from a complete data set and easy linking with no manual work.

Tu summarize:

  1. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site
    It is the most comprehensive guide to Star Trek in italian
  2. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects
    spam does not exist on the site and the community will take care this will be the case in future as well
  3. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license)
    texts are released under CC BY-SA 4.0 or GFDL
  4. be a wiki
    it is a wiki based on standard MediaWiki installation
  5. have reasonable amounts of content
    site currently has more than 14.000 pages
  6. not contain malware
    it does not contain any malware

Lucamauri (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support I support this project because is the natural evolution of HyperTrek. --Hypertrek (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support I support this project. It is an up-to-date blending between a classical hypertext project started decades ago, and an interactive, editable by everyone portal, in the spirit of the wiki initiatives. Afullo (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the record: there are 488 links to on it.wikipedia, although 337 of these are just links to the front page and the rest appear to be concentrated on a few articles. There are also 33 links to PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I still don't understand what is going on here. Are they wanting a wiki for coordinating moving Hypertrek? To where is Hypertrek moving? Is it moving to WikiTrek? Is there something required to Hypertrek? <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The proposal seems to be for wikitrek: only. might have been mentioned as the earlier version of the website. itwiki might still have links to both. Jura1 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  20221224 currently 145 links to (primarily itWP, and some wikidata) and 330 to, It would seem that there is sufficient reason to create the interwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a closed wiki for Wikimedia Indonesia, currently used for internal matters. We would be grateful if the wiki have an assigned interwiki for better functionality. Thank you. Rachmat (WMID) (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment Linking to a fishbowl/private wiki? It isn't going to be widely used, and it is only effectively useful for a small group of people. It is significant number of pages and suitable to do such linking? Just seems weird to me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The private wiki currently has more than 42,000 files which most of them are linked from this wiki. Most of them are invoices and internal papers, saved in the private wiki to avoid abuse. When the files are moved, the bare link from here doesn't automatically redirect, so that is why we consider using assigned interwiki to avoid such problem. Also, having interwiki helps the syntax neat and tidy. Best, Rachmat (WMID) (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support This will help to detect whether files/related pages already existed (red link for non-existent ones), thus providing better way of knowing the completeness of important documents in the organization, without compromising the privacy. Raisha (WMID) (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can someone explain "When the files are moved, the bare link from here doesn't automatically redirect" part? If you are linking it from id to id-internal, as long as you don't delete the old redirect (which you should NOT anyway), it should continue to redirect. If you deleted the redirect, that's your problem to solve. Also "having interwiki helps the syntax neat and tidy.": Use template, like the name "internal" (or the one in local language) with <span class="plainlinks">{{{1}}}</span> which produces "[1]" - which when used with {{internal|Hi}}, would be like [2]. — regards, Revi 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Dear Revi, thanks for your comment. Frankly, I didn't aware that bare links like this will automatically redirect when clicking it from idwikimedia, if the Example.jpg is a redirect. I was thinking it works only when [[:File:Example.jpg]] is used. The "having interwiki helps the syntax neat and tidy" means that we have been using this syntax, [[:File:Example.jpg]], for a while when we hosted our own wiki back then, and we think that it would be good if id-internal have its own interwiki, so that we could link [[:File:Example.jpg]], instead of pasting links from id-internal page in idwikimedia. Kind regards, Rachmat (WMID) (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment this doesn't strike me as particularly useful. Jura1 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still not seeing a community benefit or a requirement. Solutions have been proposed and a template can be used if it is a single wiki. A bot replacement for an interwiki is a bot replacement for a template. Where are we with this?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Link:$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 [3] 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)Reply[reply]
.. and d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q103839062 (d:Special:Permalink/1439162041#Q103839062). Jura1 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]
@GZWDer: user:Zabe points to 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)Reply[reply]

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

Uncyclopedia (re-addition proposal)Edit

(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 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)Reply[reply]
Additionally, to note: many of the former removals were based more on technicalities (e.g. 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

  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)Reply[reply]

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 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

@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)Reply[reply]
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 that was hosted by Wikia/Fandom until May 2019. forked in January 2013 and 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)Reply[reply]
Here is the thing: the interwiki link was formerly applicable for 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 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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? 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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; 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  •   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)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Should not have been removed. Zombiebaron (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Support, let's focus on the content, not the people, please. EpicPupper (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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,, 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)Reply[reply]

  Support Legoktm (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  SupportLocke Coletc 23:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support EpicPupper (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


InkluPedia is a German language wiki containing lots of articles of all kinds of topics which are not available in German language Wikipedia. The wiki was created in 2013 and is constantly updated. The articles are based on lots of reliable sources and the content is licensed with a Creative Commons license. InkluPedia is currently used as a source or weblink in a dozen of German language Wikipedia articles [6]. For sure InkluPedia does not contain malware or supports links to malware content. --InkluPedia (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@InkluPedia: We do not do well with conflict of interest requests, just as the wikipedias don't do well with conflict of interest editing. I do not see any support for the inclusion. I don't see an explanation of how you would be considered an authoritative source, or useful to the wikipedias or other wikis. With 75 links from the wikis, I am inclined to not do this interwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


An interwiki for Fandom currently exists as wikia: and its alias wikiasite: (along with specific interwikis to certain Fandom-hosted wikis), but there is no alias named "Fandom". Since the site has been renamed, I suggest allowing the new terminology to be used in links as well, to avoid confusion. Thanks, EpicPupper (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EpicPupper: that seems to be half a story.

I have not buried myself into the history of fandom/wikia ins and outs, so please take a step back and look to concisely re-explain what has happened, what it needing to be achieved, and any politics that are at play so the community can make an informed decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst, sure, here is some more information about the rename. In 2016, Wikia, a wiki hosting platform founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley Starling, underwent a major rebranding effort and changed its name to Fandom powered by Wikia 1. The name change was announced in a blog post on the Wikia website, which stated that the new name better reflected the platform's focus on communities and fan-created content. In a series of later changes from 2019-2021, all wikis migrated from domains to domains, and the Wikia branding was stripped completely 2. These changes were mostly uncontroversial and there was little negative feedback from the Fandom community following them. (Most opposers softened their tone a couple of years after the transition). Even if the community largely did not support these changes, that is irrelevant in this situation as "Fandom" is ultimately the official name of the website. Hope that helps! I think this change is relatively minor as it is merely adding an alias to the existing link, not a completely new one. EpicPupper (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discord is a widely-used chat platform for discussion of Wikimedia projects. While the software is proprietary, a lot of Wikimedia projects discuss on Discord (see the Wikidata item I linked) and linking to channels on Discord is something that Wikimedia projects would benefit from. The way that channels are linked on Discord is that each guild, channel, and message has a unique ID. Using those IDs allow for seamless message linking.

An example of each to demonstrate how they can be helpful: [[discordinv:abcdef]] would use the invite code abcdef to join the Discord community associated with that. There is a custom URL for the Wikimedia community that could be used to link to it (which of course is changed from time to time). The link [[discordchan:1/2/3]] could be used to link to a message with ID 3 in guild with ID 1 and in channel with ID 2. Of course a message does not have to be linked; if the message ID was omitted it would still link to a channel, and if the channel ID was omitted it would still link to a guild. And the link [[discord:guidelines]] could be used to link to Discord's community guidelines which would be very helpful when providing a disclaimer to users prior to joining. Aasim 01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awesome Aasim: I don't think that creating three varieties of link is going to be useful. I would think that creating one interwiki for the basic use is relevant, and then template usage at wikis for more advanced usage. So discord: to the base $1 that you suggested seems okay, however, the invites and the channels can be created from that base. Though I do note to you the criteria above for such creations and would suggest that the criteria should be directly addressed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesome Aasim, particularly note criteria 4 and 5: be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) and be a wiki. EpicPupper (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To address the criteria:
  1. be useful on a significant number of pages - This is certainly the case on Wikipedia, where the WM Community Discord has over 1000 members and is partnered.
  2. provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site - A lot of informal and formal discussions about WM topics have occurred on Discord.
  3. be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects - I don't think Discord condones any vandalism or trolling, as those go against Discord's Community Guidelines | Discord and Terms of Service | Discord.
  4. be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) - Messages sent on Discord are copyrighted by default; however, so are messages sent on IRC.
  5. be a wiki - I think this is an exception because although this is not a wiki, Discord is used in a similar manner to IRC.
  6. have reasonable amounts of content - there are plenty of discussions that occur on Discord and linking to individual points in a Discord chat would be very helpful to editors.
  7. not contain malware - While Discord does have its fair share of bad actors, just as IRC does, there are numerous safety features to protect against malware and phishing. Discord has an automated filter and allows for the addition of bots for moderation, as well as warnings when downloading files with extensions that might contain malware or opening any untrusted external link, and especially opening up a link used for phishing. There were very little of these protections on WM sites, and a few times compromised accounts have planted logic bombs and phishing attacks on Wikipedia JS files. Of course now editing CSS/JS requires an interface admin role and the enabling of 2FA. It is also important to isolate from its CDN. You would not be able to link to a file on Discord's CDN with these interwiki links; just to individual messages that require joining a particular Discord server to see.
Aasim 00:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Awesome Aasim: current convention (somebody please correct me if I am wrong) is that while previous items in the map might not meet all the criteria, they are exempted and new additions should meet them. Best wishes, EpicPupper (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe those are just general guidelines, but there an always be exceptions! Sites may still be added if they are deemed to be useful to the WM community. On the other hand, sites that meet all these guidelines but still are not useful enough to the WM community may still be declined. Aasim 01:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Much usage across the movement; hosts documentation for technical tools. EpicPupper (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EpicPupper: I don't have any issue with creating an interwiki, though I am not sure that your suggestion is my preference. I would much prefer wmdoc as it aligns with the existing WM styles and is shorter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: wmdoc is an excellent option! Striked and updated. EpicPupper (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This maybe helpful. Tryvix t 13:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over 1,100 links from the English Wikipedia, the nice thing is links to (for example) HT201300 automatically expand out to the detected/selected language of the visitor, so a link to expands to for me. There appears to be other deeplink magic potentially at work as well. I've no objection to apple being the prefix, but I'm not sure if that would conflict with any future proposal for a direct apple:$1 proposal, hence the additional "s" in the proposed prefix. —Locke Coletc 22:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question Why not just make this a local template? Do we anticipate that we'll need to use this on Wikivoyage and Wikiversity as well? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A local template wouldn't see the consistent support that an interwiki prefix would provide. Links to are used over 1,000 times on the German Wikipedia, and seems to enjoy wide use on other language Wikipedia projects. —Locke Coletc 06:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criteria 4 and 5 may be relevant: be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) and be a wiki. Additionally, apples as a prefix is confusing (it looks like a plural of apple). EpicPupper (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote the great Captain Hector Barbossa "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules". As to apples vs. apple, I suppose an alternative would be applesupport. —Locke Coletc 21:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I do not think linking to this site would be at all helpful for Wikimedia projects. Apple's support website is not a wiki, thus we should not be treating it as such. Aasim 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to add this. Tryvix t 13:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✅ be useful on a significant number of pages (existing use on Wikimedia wikis, more anticipated if interwiki established)
✅ provide clear and relevant use to the Wikimedia projects, including the purpose of the site (site is for ant taxonomy)
✅ be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to the Wikimedia projects (no links on antwiki contain spam)
✅ be free content, under a Commons-acceptable license (bottom of each page says "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike unless otherwise noted.")
✅ be a wiki (any ant taxonomist can obtain an account and then edit freely)
✅ have reasonable amounts of content (31,266 content pages according to special:statistics)
✅ not contain malware (see parenthetical on 'spam links')
Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed removalsEdit

  This section is for proposing that a prefix be disabled; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to explain why it should be disabled, particularly in view of the difficulty involved in correcting any use of the prefix (to generate a list of pages to fix: toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php). Please add {{Interwikicheck|interwiki code}} to top of the new section.

Completed requests are marked with {{done}} or {{not done}} and moved to the archives.

Requests for updatesEdit

  This section is for requesting update for an existing interwiki. This could be needed if your site's URL has changed. Please add new entries at the bottom of the section.

// ⇒ https://Edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

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

http:// ⇒ https://Edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • I guess whoever does the update of Interwiki map will have to check them anyways. Maybe it's doable with some script? Jura1 (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]


I propose that the “devmo:” interwiki prefix be updated from “$1” to “$1”, so that the links work similarly to MediaWiki’s Special:MyLanguage. — ExE Boss (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support EpicPupper (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst, on behalf of ExE Boss, here's an example language-agnostic link: It will automatically redirect to the page in your preferred language. Cheers, EpicPupper (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISO 639-3Edit

Could anyone update iso639-3: in hrwiki? silcode: seems not to work. 10:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment this would appear to be a request for the change

  •$1 to //$1

That website has more than documentation, so this limits the actual use of the target website, however, it seems to be the docs that are the real target here, so I believe that this would be a like for like replacement. Noting that there is https at the target so I am willing to push that into code neutrality. I will leave this with the updated proposal and return to see if there is further comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


IW check · GlobalSearch check

This interwiki was added way back in November 2006, before TV Tropes had its modern namespace system. Nowadays, most pages that aren't about individual tropes have been moved outside the Main namespace, which is the only one currently supported on here. Would it be possible to make, for example, [[tvtropes:Series/BuffyTheVampireSlayer]] link to the Series page while still defaulting to the Main namespace if there's no slash? Other solutions (maybe a separate prefix for non-mainspace pages?) are of course welcome. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ionmars10: If it is has been in place since 2006, then I believe that as there are only 14 uses of its interwiki that we probably should consider stop supporting its use, especially looking at all the uses of the full domain in urls. Not one of its uses of the interwiki is of importance. That said I would have no issue with removing the main component meaning that user would just need to put the full path of the PAGENAME equivalent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


IW check · GlobalSearch check

Hi Admins - can we possibly update Encyc's link to as the current link is dead, and they're now operating with a valid secure cert? Thanks! - Alison 18:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update Special:Code prefixesEdit

[[rev:$1]] currently links to$1. This should be updated to$1.html. Thanks! --Nintendofan885 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[[pyrev:$1]] currently links to$1. This should be updated to$1.html. Thanks! --Nintendofan885 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would break links like rev:r1, because the rewrites for Special:Code currently strip an optional "r" prefix since the HTML files are just <number>.html. The r-stripping rewrite could be done on the static-codereview side, but someone would have to do it and I'm not sure anyone is really interested in changing that... Legoktm (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restores WMDEEdit

I don’t understand why wmde: prefix has been broken in 2021. We have prefered a wrong link (home page) rather than a 404 error (explaining the link is broken), which seems me much clearer for visitors. Note some links have been fixed meanwhile: mentionned “Präsidium” is now a correct redirection.

So, I propose to turn the URL into$1 to allow further links. CC Martin Rulsch and MF-Warburg --Pols12 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  This section is for comments related to problems or corrections with the interwiki map (such as incorrect syntax or entries not functioning). This is not the section to request that a prefix be disabled (see Proposed removals above).

Language are set to English for wmf wikisEdit

  • The interwiki link for multilingual wmf wikis are all hardcoded to the English site only. Say when I am on spanish wiki, if I am clicking on links appearing as Wikiquote:, Wikibooks:, etc., it will take to English version. [7] Ideally, it should be going to the Spanish version itself. This has to be fixed. earlier discussionVis M (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Other discussionsEdit


I came here to suggest a mapping for$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 ([[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)Reply[reply]

@2d37: As noted we already have a JSTOR existing and it is set for 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 [8]. 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 [9] => 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Return to "Interwiki map" page.