Wikipedia talk:Interwiki map

Effects

Of course, a change to the meta map affects all Wikipedia-related projects, including wiktionaries etc. However, enwiki is by far the largest of all these. If an external link is inappropriate here, it is often plausible that it'd also be inappropriate on most or all other wikis. Meta itself is, of course, a special case, but it is rather light on traffic. >Radiant< 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should request a feature that allows individual wikis' interwiki links to be customized (except for the interwikis for Wikimedia sites)? Or does that defeat the point of interwiki-ing? If so, should we just remove all non-Wikimedia interwikis, and just convert any existing uses of the others to standard external links? – Gurch 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Criteria to look out for are (1) does the site even exists; if not, it's a no-brainer; (2) is the link in use (database queries can be done for that if we want, let's start by finding out if they're used on enwiki or meta); and (3) does it violate WP:EL. Possibly others. >Radiant< 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass pruning?

I don't see any reason why any non-Wikimedia, completely unaffiliated websites beyond our control should be given this special treatment simply because they have wikis – Gurch 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem children

Here are some clear problem children. I'm unsure what code/note to put into the table, for these (and, of course, this is irrelevant if there is a mass pruning):

BlackTexts is software consulting firm; google search found nothing at wikipedia.org;
Shownotes - shownotes.info is a parked domain on GoDaddy.com. google - only appearance of this textstring within wikipedia.org is in https://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes links, which of course isn't the domain shown in the interwiki map;
SiliconValley is a real estate site. The matter of this prefix was discussed in 2005 at User talk:Quadra630#Silicon Valley InfoZone, apparently with implicit concession that the user had violated WP:EL. A google search found nothing at wikipedia.org matching this textstring.
slskrex - is a not-for-profit group that distributes music under the Creative Commons license. Oddly, clinking on the link (http://www.soulseekrecords.com/projects/index.php/$1 ) resolves to http://www.soulseekrecords.orgprojects/index.php/$1 , which is not a valid TLD. http://www.soulseekrecords.org/ is under construction, so to speak, and http://www.soulseekrecords.com resolves back to http://www.soulseekrecords.org/ A google search on soulsearchrecords at wikipedia.org found no articles with the textstring.
Stockphotoss goes to stockphotoss.com, a nonexistent domain (confirmed by a google search)

John Broughton | Talk 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the table, something like "no such site", "commercial firm" or "EL violation" should work. I think this is relevant, whether or not we decide to mass-prune. >Radiant< 12:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support recomending those be removed. That list seems clearly bad. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion

This should really be at Meta; as stated above, the interwiki site map affects all the Wikimedia projects, and we should not assume that simply because we are the largest project, that the discussion should be held here, when Meta is the appropriate project for discussions like this. I strongly advise moving this to a Meta page (a subpage of the current talk page would work, I think) and direct people wishing to participate there. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do the research here, because we can get more participation here. Of course requests will have to be made on meta. >Radiant< 12:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quick review

AcadWiki - Site down.
AjaxXAB - Wiki not working
CrazyHacks - Looks like a fine website, but I can't imagine why we would ever need to link to it more then a few times. I recommend removing this one as well.
del.icio.us - A website who's only purpase is to link to other websites.
doom_wiki - Wiki on Doom. Would never be linked to from more then 3/4 articles.
EditCount - Broken. Maybe switch to a different tool? Anyway, the link would only work for en-wiki anyway.
FinalEmpire - Game wiki
FinalFantasy - Game wiki
Guildwiki - Guildwars wiki.
cdegroot.com Wiki "On this Wiki, I collect stuff that interests me" - Enough said.
JspWiki - Looks like a personal wiki for talking about the JSP programing language. Would fail wP:EL for almost any article except maybe JSP.
QuakeWiki - Game wiki
Robowiki - Robot building wiki. Limited usefulness

I reviewed some of the links randomly... I skipped the good looking ones and only made it down half the list. lol... but I found a bunch that look bad. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable

"CraftedByCarol" just SOUNDS questionable. 68.39.174.238 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triage Needed

Wow, this list is long. I would suggest that it is too long to have a site-by-site evaluation right now. First I would prune out all of the obviously broken ones and let's see what's left. I think that those are going to be non-controversial. -- Alucard (Dr.) 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I reccomend getting meta to remove the obviously defective ones and then removing them from this list. That'll help shorten the list up. 68.39.174.238 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Given that this is an interwiki map, I suggest a semi-rule that ONLY wikis should be linked to via it. While I may have missed something, I've NEVER seen a Google: or myspace: link anywhere on any WMF wiki. 68.39.174.238 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Interwiki map is a Wikimedia issue and any policy suggestions need to be brought up there to get the attention they deserve. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropedia

Appropedia looks like a very worthwhile site, but it is small with few editors so currently fails our external links guidelines. I don't see a good reason for having this hold a special status. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More requested to be removed

Narrow Focus

WoWWiki [1] - Site dedicated to a single game, World Of Warcraft.
WurmPedia [2] - Site is dedicated to a single game, Wurm Online
ZWiki [3] - User's guide for Zwiki wiki software

Sites down

WLWiki [4] - Looks like the wiki was removed from the server. supremepixels.net looks to be working just fine.
YpsiEyeball [5] - Site down

Cross posted here: [6] ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the future, please edit the page to add these statements in the table. >Radiant< 09:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information about WoWWiki above is wrong. It covers the entire Warcraft universe... but I want the interwiki link removed also for different reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the below heading-comment, WoWWiki is one of those "largest" Wikias, even though it doesn't carry the same titling. Also per the below heading-comment, it is linkable using Wikia's interwiki linking, which I'm not sure if that's possible from Wikipedia. Per the above comment, the WoWWiki is basically the only place one can go for Warcraft related information; sadly enough, all the Warcraft related information here has basically been deleted. That is not to say that it shouldn't have been, but it was a very cascading type of event. First the zones, then the characters, then the character list. Even a few of the books here could easily come under fire for deletion.

All that said, I disagree with removal of the WoWWiki interwiki link (unless one can use wikia's interwiki linking), as it is used to good effect in World of Warcraft, and its usage could very quickly be expanded to the other Warcraft related articles. --Izno (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Furthermore, I don't see this "cross-post", which may be because it was removed there (I don't know why, considering talk page guidelines). --Izno (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Completely didn't realize that these requests were over a year old, except for the IP's commentary. --Izno (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

BibleWiki is legit.
CentralWikia is legit. It's the main wiki for all of Wikia.
- All but the very largest Wikia wikis should probably be removed. They now have a sytax that's something like c:wikiname:wikipage where you can get to everything from the Central Wikia wiki. There are multiple prefixes (Wikicity, Wikia, Wikisite) that should probably be cut down to a single prefix.
Disinfopedia/Sourcewatch is a fairly good website when it's up, but I keep finding it down. The prefix should be changed to Sourcewatch.
Editthis is a wiki farm. There doesn't seem to be any large wikis on it, and messages on their Feedback page never seem to get answered.
ELibre (enciclopedia Libre) is very legit. It's a very early fork of the Spanish Wikipedia.
EvoWiki is legit. An evolution wiki.
InfoAnarchy is legit.
OrthodoxWiki (Orthodox Christianity) was legit, but when I just tried to visit it, all I got was an internal error message.
ReutersWiki: legit, but narrow scope and little activity. They copied a Reuter's book on financial terms and wikified it.
WikInfo is a Wikipedia fork.
World66 is a sister website to WikiTravel

A suggestion: For all MediaWiki websites, look at the statistics page, and report the # of legitimate pages, and the # of users. For any websites that have Wikipedia articles (e.g. UseMod, Meatball Wiki), wikilink them. Blank Verse 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]