"Nathan Larson" wrote in message
news:CAF-JeUxsM-jQ85nij+OALA=rlolnppmhx7yhka1_hiz7m0a...@mail.gmail.com...
Why is it worth the trouble of maintaining two separate lists? Do the
Wikimedia-specific interwiki prefixes get in people's way, e.g. when
they're reading through the interwiki list and encounter what is, to
them,
useless clutter?
I can't say I care about people reading through the interwiki list.
It's just that with the one interwiki map, we are projecting "our"
internal interwikis, like strategy:, foundation:, sulutil:, wmch: onto
external MediaWiki installations. No-one needs these prefixes except
WMF wikis, and having these in the global map makes MediaWiki look too
WMF-centric.
Sometimes I do use those
Wikimedia-specific prefixes on third-party wikis (e.g. if I'm talking
about
MediaWiki development issues)
This is a good argument to include gerrit:, rev:, mediazilla: etc. on
the global interwiki map.
and they might also end up getting used if
people import content from Wikimedia wikis.
They're mainly used in meta-discussions, so I doubt this is a concern.
People will say we should keep those interwikis for historical
reasons. So,
I think we should have a bot ready to go through the various wikis and
make
edits converting those interwiki links to regular links. We should
make
this tool available to the third-party wikis too. Perhaps it could be
a
maintenance script.
Amen to this. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60135
Can we come up with numerical cutoffs for what count as
"well-established",
"active", and "very commonly linked to", so that people know what to
expect
before they put a proposal forth, or will it be like notability
debates,
and come down to people's individual opinions of what should count as
"very
commonly linked to" (as well as a certain amount of
ILIKEIT<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_like_it>and
IDONTLIKEIT, even if users deny that's the basis for their decision)?
We might get the help of WikiIndex and (especially) WikiApiary in
getting
the necessary statistics.
I don't see the need for instruction creep here. I'm for an inclusive
interwiki map. Inactive wikis (e.g. RecentChanges shows only sporadic
non-spam edits) and non-established wikis (e.g. AllPages shows little
content) should be excluded. So far, there have been no issues with
using subjective criteria at meta:Talk:Interwiki map.
It's okay, it's a complicated subject with a lot of tricky
implementation
decisions that need to be made (which is probably part of why it's
been
neglected). Thanks for taking the time to do a thorough analysis.
And thank you, Nathan, for your contributions.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
