Talk:Interwiki map

Add topic
Active discussions
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)

  Support I support this project because is the natural evolution of HyperTrek. --Hypertrek (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  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)
  • 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)
    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)
    • 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)


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)

  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)

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)
  •   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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  •   Comment this doesn't strike me as particularly useful. Jura1 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


  • 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)
.. and d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q103839062 (d:Special:Permalink/1439162041#Q103839062). Jura1 (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


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 for the place with all the action.  — billinghurst sDrewth

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)
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)
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 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: and 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 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)
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)
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? 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; 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)


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)

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


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 [5]. For sure InkluPedia does not contain malware or supports links to malware content. --InkluPedia (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


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)


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)

UTRS (file an appeal)Edit

  • Proposed link:
  • Proposed prefix: utrs-app or utrsa (utrs is already in use, can't come with anything else, feel free to propose alternatives)

UTRS, short of Unblock Ticket Request System is a Cloud VPS project to allow blocked users to request an unblock. An interwiki link would be useful so stewards could start using it in our global block/lock summaries. UTRS has been recently adapted to handle appeals of global blocks and locks, and may be more user-friendly than VRTS (OTRS). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


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.


The "character"-..feature is not supported anymore. Any Links to http[s]://[www.] 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 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)


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

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)


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)

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


User:Charly Whisky pointed out on dewiki (link), that redirects to now. Therefore I suggest to change the interwiki map for kamelo from


Raymond (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


The Beta cluster is a part of Wikimedia, and satisfies all conditions listed above. An area for test wikis, the Beta clusters was linked to for about 10000+ times according to global-search. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh:   Done (diff) — I tested this, and [[:betacluster:simple:Test]] / [[:betacluster:meta:Test]] etc. (will) work as expected — TNT (talk • she/her) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: I think @Jdforrester (WMF) made a good argument here why Beta Cluster sites should not be added to this map. It's been some time and circumstances might have changed, but considering there's a precedent opposing the addition, I'd have prefered more discussion. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio, TheresNoTime, and NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Yeah, there's even less of a plan now about the future of Beta Cluster than there was in 2019, but we definitely should not be encouraging people to link to it from production; adding an interwiki prefix endorses a site as a valuable thing to which to link, which I don't think is right. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I have self-reverted the addition, and would welcome someone going through them and removing the dead/redirecting links, seeing as these are "endorsements". — TNT (talk • she/her) 13:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ISO 639-3Edit

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


  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. [6] 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)
    • Isn't it too late for this? I added a few {{Interwikicheck}} above with the result counts. Jura1 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Other discussionsEdit

Transclude field deprecated?Edit

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)


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)

Return to "Interwiki map" page.