Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Interwiki map/Archives/2007-12

< Talk:Interwiki map | Archives
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Lar in topic Rejected

Proposed additions

Accepted

Latest comment: 16 years ago54 comments18 people in discussion

More IMDb

closed: done by Lar

We are missing company and characters links. It's not a wiki, and no one sais that interwiki links all have to be wikis. IMDb is very often linked to from many wiki sites, including Wikipedia. --Steinninn 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This probably belongs in changes rather than adds... but can you specify what prefixes you want linked to what URLs? Let's discuss further though. Not all interwiki links HAVE to be to Wikis but we should have consensus for changes rather than adding things willy nilly. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for discussion. I just made a proposal and I'll have no problems it if the community disagrees. I'm thinking about something like:
--Steinninn 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Any further discussion? We already have in the (long ago past, I can't find the original discussion) approved IMDB. These are extensions to that, and the prefixes seem to be unlikely to conflict with other things in the namespace since they all start with IMDb... I'd tend to support adding these. I don't think you can use the other IMDb prefixes already there to achieve this as written, can you? The $1 gets embedded in part of the url that doesn't start with a slash. Note that we already have

in there, so really this is just, as Steininn says, adding company and character. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, there's little need for a discussion on this. I see no reason why someone should object. --Steinninn 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And no one did.   Done, there being no objections. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Wikimania 2005/2008

closed: A done deal, although done rather hastily... let's try to get consensus even for the obvious ones first

While this is an obvious addition, I would like to gain further community support before I add it. I would like this to have wm2005: as the others do. Thunderhead 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While I still can't believe Thunderhead reverted this obvious addition, I also strongly agree to this being added. Majorly (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, 2008 needs one, similar style. Majorly (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  Done Cbrown1023 talk 01:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think any addition, no matter how obvious, needs to be proposed here, and a suitable period of time given for objections to be aired, before it is added. Even for really obvious ones like this one, because removals are quite hard (once propagated, the prefix is out there and may never be removed from some sites)... I support addition, but would have preferred more discussion... I think a minimum of 4 or 5 days is appropriate in case there is some technical issue with the name (it has happened before) we are not aware of. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


LyricWiki

closed: Done by birdy

  • Wiki format: [[lyricwiki:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://www.lyricwiki.org/$1
  • Reason: The sixth largest site using mediawiki software (according to wikindex), LyricWiki has over a half million pages. With so many album pages on wikipedia, such a link seems obvious, especially considering that LyricWiki is multi-lingual. Aquatiki 07:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea; we already have a number of external links to the site. This is a good alternative to the continued desire of many misguided editors to add lyrics to our encyclopedia pages in possible violation of copyrights. It's also one of the few sites to pay copyright royalties -- see this discussion, the LyricWiki article on en.wikipedia, and the en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyricWiki discussion (the AfD failed). The [ http://www.lyricwiki.org site] hosts a few ads but is apparently a non-profit service of a for-profit company -- similar to Bomis and Wikipedia a few years ago. --A. B. (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me and I will add it on my next pass through here if no one else does first. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  Done, thank You, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Toolserver wiki

closed: Done by birdy

  • Wiki format: [[tswiki:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://wiki.ts.wikimedia.org/view/$1
  • Reason: pretty selfexplanatory... ;-)

— Danny B. 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, what about ts instead of tswiki? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That would conflict with ISO 639 code for Tsonga language. MaxSem 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's right, thank You, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd actually rather have [[tools:]], but it has different URL to toolserver now (which actually doesn't point to wiki, which is one of the conditions for new interwiki links). But I don't know how much it's already spreaded across wikis. (I suppose not so much to make big damage with changing the target.) The question is, if it's necessary to have direct links to tools since all available tools should be accessible via toolserver wiki. So I'd prefer the change of current [[tools:]] target.
— Danny B. 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's go with tswiki: unless someone really doesn't like that. I'll add it next pass unless someone objects or beats me to it. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  Done, thank You, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

mail archive

closed: Done by birdy

  • Wiki format: [[mailarchive:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/$1
  • Reason: As a complement to existing [[mail:]]

— Danny B. 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinvest

closed: Done by Lar who decided to just add this, it's gone on long enough...

Hi guys -- as the discussion has gotten a bit lengthy, I'm summarizing below. For those who are new to the discussion, I recommend you read the full discussion, which I've copied to Talk:Interwiki_map/Wikinvest (and will soon remove from this page). I've tried to be balanced in my summary, but others should feel free to add / modify if they disagree. Parkerconrad 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the summary Parker. I really want to drive this one to closure if we can. It appears to be more controversial than I expected... for whatever reason. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost two months later and we are no closer to a consensus. Let's call the question. I propose that unless several people speak up in support of adding this within the next week or two, that I will close as no consensus to add (despite my personal preference to add this). ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so, we've made a bunch of changes since we got some opposition which I believe should address almost all the complaints we heard. Since those changes addressing complaints, there hasn't been a single person writing in opposing an add. Shouldn't the default then be to add, rather than to close? At the very least, I suspect the lack of activity on this is more a result of apathy than direct opposition. Could we extend a bit more, and do you have any suggestions to get some more meta folk to come check out the add request? I'm confident that if folks took a real look at the site they'd agree that this is precisely the kind of linking the interwiki map was created for - complimentary articles on a topic existing on different wiki projects. Since I think we've addressed pretty much every single concern about the add except GFDL, which is not a requirement for addition (several members of the map are not GFDL licensed) I'm at a loss trying to understand what the opposition could be... Parkerconrad 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that you politely ping some of the previous opposers and ask them to restate their views? If some of them have come around to not opposing, that would suggest we're good to go. I'm a bit behind on doing stuff on this page, my apologies. We have a couple of other folk doing these too but they've tended to go for the obvious ones only. I agree you've addressed all the objections, one way or another. ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinvest is an investment wiki seeking to be added to the interwiki map.

Arguments in favor of adding

  • Technology used on top of MW is "remarkable" (Lar). The site has a pretty unique skin, we implemented a reputation scheme to give credit to "top contributors" of an article, has cool "wikicharts" that allow you to add a wiki snippet to a chart and explain a price movement, there's a "link suggest" feature that automatically pops up a javascript window with suggested article titles when you type two open brackets (my personal favorite), along with many other things.
  • New technology also complicates things - the different look and feel meant at least one admin checking out the site didn't see the edit button & recent changes at first, and opposed on the grounds that we weren't a wiki! Rest assured, we are a wiki and both edit and recent changes are prominent on every page but the home page.
  • Content, at several hundred "mature" articles (a designation indicating a level of completeness, there are thousands of "stubs") and contributors far exceed those of previously added investment wiki, ValueWiki. "Mature" articles tend to have tables, charts, and pictures. You can see a list of mature articles by clicking on "Companies" or "Concepts" browse buttons on the site.
  • Wikinvest would be a good complement to articles about companies on Wikipedia, which tend to focus on a company from a cultural / encyclopedic perspective rather than an investment one. Articles are complimentary but not duplicative of wikipedia content, making an interwiki relationship a perfect fit in my view. As a comparison, check out Wikipedia's article on Monsanto and compare it to Wikinvest's.

Arguments Opposed

There are a number of objections that have been raised. Some of the objectors made really valid points that I agree with, and these objections have (hopefully) been handled by changes to the site incorporating feedback. In no particular order, they are:

  • Not enough countent
  • Response: Content is growing rapidly, and is much, much larger in terms of number of complete articles and number of edits than competitor ValueWiki, which was added to the interwiki map a few months back.
  • Terms of use appear to allow contact by third parties affiliated with Wikinvest (IE: "?!?!? Are you guys trying to spam us??")
  • Fixed. Terms of use corrected with this provision removed. It was never our intention to do this.
  • No credit given to MediaWiki on the site
  • Help pages use Wikipedia content without proper attribution.
  • Fixed. This was again my screw-up - I didn't properly understand the license, and while I gave credit to Wikipedia, I didn't know I was supposed to link to the history page of the article in question to credit contributors. It's been updated with (I hope) the right format.
  • Special:Statistics not available to non-admins.
  • I blocked this for a couple reasons, the main one was that, with the changes we've made, it's spouting out nonsense (currently it says we have 18,446,744,073,709,551,513 legitimate content pages. While that might make us look pretty good, it's unfortunately not true). A few other special pages were blocked because of security concerns. If there are particular things you guys need to know I'm sure we can figure out a way to get that info for you...
  • Content not under a GFDL license
  • First, I should point out there are other sites on the interwiki map that are not GFDL content - this is not a requirement for being on the interwiki map. For us, this was not an easy decision. The rationale not to GFDL was as follows: Some of the folks we're trying to get to contribute were opposed to GFDL. They believed our reputation system (which gives "credit" to top contributors) combined with GFDL would be particularly pernicious. While they felt they'd be willing to have content directly associated with their name on our site (where they can check out the look and feel, etc.) they didn't like the idea that they were giving anyone, anywhere, license to republish work associated with their name. So, while contributors still maintain copyright on their work (they do not give up those rights), they grant Wikinvest a non-exclusive license to use their work - contributors are free to grant others the same license to their contributions, or even put it out under the GFDL or GPL, but it does not happen automatically as a consequence of contributing to Wikinvest.

  Done added as

++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Wiki (Wikimedia)

closed: Done by Lar

Is this a special case for now (like commons or meta) or is it a new wiki type like source, wikt, quote, etc? The matrix suggests the latter. I have wondered in the past how these get set up... see the discussion about commons. Not opposed to doing this but want to see that we do it right. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The matrix suggests the latter? I think the matrix suggests the former, that quality.wikimedia.org is a new "special" wiki like office and board. That being said, I have no problems with this being added. Cbrown1023 talk 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "the former", sorry, it's a special case. My question stands, I am confused about how we do internal wikis in general. I thought the best way was to get developer assistance rather than adding it here. I am fine with adding it here but once added here I thought it then makes it harder to do it the other way. It would be good to get some writeup on this (where to put it?) as I think it is confusing to more people than just me. I'm not opposed to doing it here if that's the right way. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  Done ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Openstreetmap wiki

closed: Done by Lar Please add [[Openstreetmap:...]] (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/$1) for the Wiki of the Openstreetmap project (http://www.openstreetmap.org/). The content is available under cc-by-sa-2.0. A lot of Wikipedians are active their too. Thanks. Raymond 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

4.6M views, 55k edits, thousands of users. Open to anyone to get an ID, licensed under a free license, is a wiki. Seems to pass most checks. I will add this on the next pass through here if no one objects or beats me to it. Prefix will be [[Openstreetmap:]] rather than with the extra dots :) ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  Done ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Dmoz

closed: done by lar

Hello. Could two interwiki links for the Open Directory Project dmoz be added?

Reason: There are a hundreds (thousands?) of external links to this project on Wikipedia alone and it would benefit all the projects to have it. --Darklama 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a worthwhile suggestion to me. Links to DMOZ almost certainly number thousands, --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Will do next pass if no objections seen and no one else beats me to it. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done Added both these. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia

closed: done by lar

  • Wiki format: [[Veropedia:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://en.veropedia.com/a/$1
  • Reason: Veropedia, while it's not a "wiki", it's directly fueled by Wikipedia articles, GFDL compatible (obviously), and already has a lot of people excited over on Wikipedia about it's potential, and how it relates to work on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems a no brainer. I support this and will do it next time I take a pass through here if no objections are given and no one else has already done it. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done added this. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies

closed: done by lar

  • Wiki format: [[Species:]]
  • Interwiki link: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1
  • Reason: A lot shorter to type then the current [[Wikispecies:]]. It also makes sense, because other wikis like Wikibooks use a shortcut w/o the "Wiki", hence [[b:]] or [[s:]] for wikisource. Mønobi 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Cbrown1023 talk 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd support keeping both but ya, seems a good plan. Next time I take a pass (soon, soon!) unless someone else beats me to it or someone objects, I'll add this and not delete the other. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he wanted the other one deleted, just a new one added, at least that was my interpretation. Cbrown1023 talk 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just added :). Mønobi 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Rejected

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Marvel Universe

closed: not done by birdy

I suggest adding http://www.marvel.com/universe/$1 with the marvel: prefix. Feel free to rename it to something like marveluniv: or marveluniverse: if there are any complaints from users from the Marvel Database or if you feel that the shorter prefix is unfair to it. This is the official wiki of Marvel Comics. It would be a great source to many Wikipedia articles about Marvel comics characters because many of its articles are well-written and are vetted by Marvel's own administrators and other contributors that have earned enough positive karma (called Hero Points). I accidentally stumbled on it when looking for information about Marvel's Civil War. By the way, it runs a heavily customized version of MediaWiki. Jesse Viviano 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one that we (I?) have let sit too long. The site is very commercial but there appears to be a lot of content there based on some spot checks. It does not seem to credit MediaWiki that I could see, and I had a hard time determining where the special pages were, but I did find them. This is not a wiki in the conventional sense I don't feel as it only has 3 registered users.... stats:
There are 11,849 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Marvel Universe, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 3,436 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. There have been a total of 172,444,154 page views, and 55,470 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 4.68 average edits per page, and 3,108.78 views per edit.
Given that this has been a reason to downcheck some other candidates I'd want some other folks to look at it. Despite the issues I note the content seems rich. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea of including this. It's not only a commercial site, it is unfree content, with an "All rights reserved." tag on every page. Dmcdevit 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with Dmcdevit here --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we mark it as notdone then, as we seem to have a (small but valid) consensus on this? We don't downcheck commercial sites just because they're commercial but this one seems far off on several of the axes... ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not done, per discussion above, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Valve Developer Community

closed: not done by Lar

Since I couldn't find this on the wikimap, I'd like to propose the addition of [developer.valvesoftware.com the VDC wiki] to the interwiki map with the prefix vdc: and redirect link developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/$1 The wiki is a growing database of anything about the game developing company Valve, but mainly about modding. The community grows with every Valve game released and while substantial edits don't appear every day, it's still something worth mentioning. I assume several wikis could use this interwiki quite a lot. --84.0.136.158 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to be a licensed developer to get an account. So it fails one of our axes of merit (anyone can edit). It's primarily a site to promote a specific non free product, and so fails another one (promoting open content) I'm not sure how general interest this is. 38K users, 70K edits, 28M page views suggests it certainly has some interest. I would like to hear what others think because that's a lot of page views. Could the original proposer suggest some wikis that would benefit from the links to a substantial degree? ++Lar: t/c 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This does not seem like a worthwhile link to me. Interest - maybe, widespread cross wiki interest seems unlikely --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  Not done ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Updates

Rejected

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Commons

(reopened ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC))


since Commons is a metalanguages project can you make it http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=$1&uselang=the language of the wiki so if I put the interwiki in Arabic wikipedia it will make the link to Arabic Commons Menasim 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the interwiki map system we presently have will support the functionality you're requesting. This would require each wiki to have a unique interwiki table, which is exactly what the meta interwiki map seeks to avoid. AmiDaniel 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  Not done

Second request regarding commons: Add a shortcut, c:? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: A copy of the "commons:" existing shortcut here, not a hardcoded shortcut such as en: ~Kylu (u|t) 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this might take developer work? Aren't WMF wikis handled elsewhere? I don't know for sure and invite comment from others. Also we are very parsimonious with single letters, but if we were to use C for anything, this presumably would be the place. Or maybe not? If it's a copy? ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
How do we drive this to closure? ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[[c:]] has been proposed above, let's not split the discussion.
— Danny B. 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. I'm proposing not to do this one. See above for why. This proposal will get archived near the other one or crosslinked, to keep them connected. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Not done see this version on the shortcut proposals which are related. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2007-12&oldid=837638"
Return to "Interwiki map/Archives/2007-12" page.