Wikiquote now has specific-language subdomains. Instead of creating wikis for all 150 languages, I made a system where wikis are only created when they're wanted. To save time during maintenance operations, it should now be possible to delete unused Wiktionaries and even Wikipedias until they are required.
Similar conversion of Wikibooks should be a fairly simple thing, I'm now just waiting for community approval. We can't put subdomains under wikisource.org because the domain name doesn't point to the right place. It's owned by Mav and points to a redirect server, redirecting to quote.wikipedia.org.
So, in terms of wikimarkup, you could use something like [[quote:Main Page]] to link to Wikiquote's main page from a Wikipedia or Wiktionary? What about [[books:Main Page]] or [[source:Main Page]]?
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:22:31 -0600, kelvSYC kelvsyc@shaw.ca wrote:
So, in terms of wikimarkup, you could use something like [[quote:Main Page]] to link to Wikiquote's main page from a Wikipedia or Wiktionary? What about [[books:Main Page]] or [[source:Main Page]]?
The correct interwiki links would be [[wikiquote:Main Page]], [[wikibooks:Main Page]] and [[wikisource:Main Page]].
There is a complete list of supported interwiki links at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map.
Angela.
kelvSYC wrote:
So, in terms of wikimarkup, you could use something like [[quote:Main Page]] to link to Wikiquote's main page from a Wikipedia or Wiktionary? What about [[books:Main Page]] or [[source:Main Page]]?
The current interwiki link prefixes are "w" for wikipedia, "wikt" for wiktionary and "wikiquote" for wikiquote. I was intending on using the literal names "wikibooks" and "wikisource", since those prefixes were already valid interwiki links. When I set up the multi-language wiktionaries, there were subtle differences between the "wiktionary" link which I left as is for backwards compatibility, and the new "wikt" link. People found these differences confusing when they encountered them, which is why I avoided it this time. However I can see the advantage of having short names, and perhaps the problems could be avoided with better documentation, or maybe a slight break in backwards compatibility to produce a more intuitive result.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
kelvSYC wrote:
So, in terms of wikimarkup, you could use something like [[quote:Main Page]] to link to Wikiquote's main page from a Wikipedia or Wiktionary? What about [[books:Main Page]] or [[source:Main Page]]?
The current interwiki link prefixes are "w" for wikipedia, "wikt" for wiktionary and "wikiquote" for wikiquote. I was intending on using the literal names "wikibooks" and "wikisource", since those prefixes were already valid interwiki links. When I set up the multi-language wiktionaries, there were subtle differences between the "wiktionary" link which I left as is for backwards compatibility, and the new "wikt" link. People found these differences confusing when they encountered them, which is why I avoided it this time. However I can see the advantage of having short names, and perhaps the problems could be avoided with better documentation, or maybe a slight break in backwards compatibility to produce a more intuitive result.
My own preferences have always been "wp" for Wikipedia; "wd" for Wiktionary (though I suppose "wt" would do), "wq" for Wikiquote, "ws" for Wikisource, "wb" for Wikibooks, and "wm" for the 9/11 project. These are all two letter "w" codes which should be easy to remember. I haven't heard any clamour for additional projects. The "w" codes would not conflict with any ISO-639-1 language codes where only "wa" and "wo" are used.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My own preferences have always been "wp" for Wikipedia; "wd" for Wiktionary (though I suppose "wt" would do), "wq" for Wikiquote, "ws" for Wikisource, "wb" for Wikibooks, and "wm" for the 9/11 project. These are all two letter "w" codes which should be easy to remember. I haven't heard any clamour for additional projects. The "w" codes would not conflict with any ISO-639-1 language codes where only "wa" and "wo" are used.
"wt" should be reserved for Wikitravel. who may eventually join the Wikimedia family. Also, current plans are to rename the Sep11 wiki to Wikipeople and expand its focus. So that may complicate using wp.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My own preferences have always been "wp" for Wikipedia; "wd" for Wiktionary (though I suppose "wt" would do), "wq" for Wikiquote, "ws" for Wikisource, "wb" for Wikibooks, and "wm" for the 9/11 project. These are all two letter "w" codes which should be easy to remember. I haven't heard any clamour for additional projects. The "w" codes would not conflict with any ISO-639-1 language codes where only "wa" and "wo" are used.
"wt" should be reserved for Wikitravel. who may eventually join the Wikimedia family. Also, current plans are to rename the Sep11 wiki to Wikipeople and expand its focus. So that may complicate using wp.
Since I'm sure everyone will agree that Wikipedia is by far the biggest, most successful and most popular one of our projects, would there be any significant objection to just keeping "w" for Wikipedia?
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Since I'm sure everyone will agree that Wikipedia is by far the biggest, most successful and most popular one of our projects, would there be any significant objection to just keeping "w" for Wikipedia?
We are probably stuck with it due to backwards compatibility at the very least. But the full name should continue to work as well (wikipedia:xx:).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org