Talk:interwiki

How to link to wikipedia in spanish, for example ??.

Perhaps wes: this is w and es ( es is spanish like http://es.wikipedia.org ).

Who coined this term, did it exist before Wikipedia ?16@r 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a clude: http://hikiwiki.org/its/?Ticket-69

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Rfv-sense: Adjective. Looks like use of the noun. The noun is definitely attestable, the verb too, I think, but just barely based on Usenet cites. Have added a Google Book citation to the verb for good measure. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually be interested to see cites for the noun. There is a noun sense that I'm familiar with ("= interwiki link"), but our current noun sense ("The structure, space or network of links between wikis") seems like tosh. If that can't be cited, then by default it makes sense to treat "interwiki" as an adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, though I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits, none of them which seem to be verb forms. Oh and see User:Mglovesfun/to do if you're wondering where these nominations come from. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits": I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. I acknowledged that there is a noun sense, but I contend that it's short for "interwiki link", and therefore contest the notion that "interwiki link" is using the noun "interwiki" attributively (since that would be circular and redundant: it implies that "interwiki link" means "interwiki-link link", which means "interwiki-link–link link", and so on). —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I hadn't actually read the noun sense as I just assumed it said interwiki link. The adjective (or noun used attributively) is much easier to cite than the noun used countably, but IMO it is a noun. Perhaps that's an RFD issue rather than RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, we can leave it here for a month to see if anyone provides really compelling adjectival cites, then move it if no one does. RFD discussions, for whatever reason, don't seem to be very conducive to evidence-gathering, nor very responsive to such evidence as is gathered. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{look}} So, which part of speech is supposed to stay? - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjective removed. - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjective?

Isn't "interwiki" an adjective too? —Wei4Green (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Origin is outside WMF

There seems to be an incorrect impression that this is Wikimedia jargon, but it actually originated elsewhere, before Wikipedia even existed.

The term seems to have originated on the very first wiki with the intention of linking all wikis into one navigable site; the term was then taken up by MeatBallWiki / the UseMod software and came to refer specifically to cross-site hyperlinks.

Those Wayback Machine archives are from 2002 and 2001, respectively, but the pages clearly existed before that. Notably, a related page titled InterWikiMap describes the facility existing "as of November 25, 2000". Note that Wikipedia was not launched until January 2001. - IMSoP (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I found examples on Usenet from 2000, so it must predate Wikipedia. @Quercus solaris. 70.172.194.25 06:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wrote at your talk page, but I'll move it to here. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Here was my comment: At interwiki and transwiki—they are no longer specific to WMF jargon, if they ever were. I don't think that they should be labeled as WMF jargon without further explanation when they are not specific to it. I changed some labels to "originally WMF jargon" on the idea that they started that way but aren't anymore. But maybe they never were even to begin with, as you rightfully pointed out. I might just delete the labels entirely. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement. Also, FWIW, the verb/gerund is also attested from 2000 (more sources could be gathered, but this clearly dated example suffices to demonstrate the point).

I'm less sure about the origins of "transwiki". That might have originated as a WMFism, but I'd need to do more research to be more confident. Either way, you're right that it's not exclusively used on WMF wikis currently. For example, here it is on Fandom (Wikia). 70.172.194.25 06:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The etymology of transwiki clearly says that it was coined in WMF context, so I don't see why that label was removed. – Jberkel 08:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I didn't even think to check the entry to see the etymology, which even has the original mailing list post in which it was used (I wasn't the one who removed the label). But that makes sense to me, as I wasn't able to find any pre-Wikipedia uses. 70.172.194.25 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Upshot—we're in agreement. The labels are now gone from interwiki, and transwiki says "originally Wikimedia jargon". Thanks for helping to fix them. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)