Help talk:Interwikimedia links: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:22, 27 June 2007

Toolserver interwiki link

Is it possible to create an interwiki link to the toolserver? If so, what is the syntax?

Thanks, -Reuvenk_[T][C] 21:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldwikisource

Shouldn't the prefix "oldwikisource" be listed here? It appears to work, and no other way is listed to link to it. Example: oldwikisource:. – b_jonas 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International links

How are the links called that connect the current article to its analog articles in other languages, and which can be seen on the lower left corner of the article? For example, in the article Soup, there is a link [[de:Suppe]] that links to the German article about the same topic. --Abdull 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. --Abdull 19:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles from non-English wiki are have equivalents on English wiki?

A question I asked at WP(A) - perhaps you know the answer? Please post there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikipedia:Interlanguage links?

It seems to me that both pages are on a very similar topic, why not merge them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. I'm setting up the merge templates. --Swift 17:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok as long as there are lots of redirects (I'm sure there will be; I created a bunch of redirects to Wikipedia:interlanguage links and I'm sure they'll get updated with the merge.) However, note that when I first saw words like "interwikimedia", I assumed they were talking about going between different formats or technologies, such as between Wikipedia and Wiktionary and other sister projects, rather than between languages. --Coppertwig 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, they talk about the same thing. BTW: the main page on links is a piece of crap. It talks about lots of details but misses out completely on a concise overview on link syntax (it only explains the most common local inter article link syntax). Roeschter 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do the merge. --Altermike 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short form for Commons?

"c:" ??? seems a good idea to me. Where to ask? ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta:? Not too sure that this is needed, though. This has definately been brought up before. I'd suggest that you search Meta, Commons and the email lists. --Swift 06:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific as to where on meta??? And why was it turned down before if you recall offhand, it seems a really good idea, saving significant time. (just as w: does). ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen this discussed anywhere (note the questionmark), but Meta would be the appropriate place (the Meta "Community Portal" version is meta:Meta:Babel). My use of the word "definately" was to represent my personal view of the certainty that this must have been brought up in previous discussion.

I don't think typing "ommons" takes all that much time. --Swift 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but perhaps "C:" = C: drive : ) - jc37 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think typing "ikipedia" takes all that much time either, but we have "w:" after all. Perhaps I type "ommons" more than you do. I'd point out that I asked about where to ask about this, and did not ask to engage in a debate about whether it was a good idea or not, in the wrong place. Thanks for clarifying that "definitely" meant your supposition about matters rather than knowledge or memory. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we have "w:" after all." One feature does not necessitate others. This doesn't work on precedence. Furthermore, having "wikimedia:" instead of "w:" on links would take up quite a lot of space. Given the frequency that one might want to link to an encyclopaedic entry on a term without too much disruption to the text in which the link is in, the shorthand seems like a good idea.

"Perhaps I type "ommons" more than you do." Maybe you do. Great for you.

"[I] did not ask to engage in a debate about whether it was a good idea or not" Nor did anyone force you to engage in any form of debate. I voiced my oppinion and you, on your own free will, deceided to reply by introducing your rationale for your idea into this discussion. If you dislike the discussion, a good start would be to refrain from engaging in it.

"your supposition about matters" Perhaps it would be more accurately labelled as educated assumptions. It has not been my experience that the WMF crew is fairly thorough in their decisions. It is, however, still possible that you are actually the first person to suggest this.

Good luck. Perhaps you will consider posting your findings for others that come after you in search of this same question? --Swift 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies

Is there a short form for Wikispecies links? Cheers, -- Visviva 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

Is there any guidelines for when to put interwiki links in the text? Can I use Template:WD to make inline links to wiktionary from any article, or should I only make inline links to other wikipedia articles? /¨81.229.40.5 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]