Forum:Significant Crossover Interwiki addition suggestions

Awhile back I suggested the idea of adding "Interwiki links" in relation to the DLC project: https://minecraft.wiki/w/Minecraft_Wiki_talk:Projects/DLC#Interwiki_links

The flaw with my original idea is I never put any limits into how this should be done so it left a gap for MANY useless interwiki links that were used once. BUT this changes now, with me pushing the idea of only "Significant Crossovers" getting them if the Wiki also passes requirements.

For Significant Crossovers (DLC/Mentions/References/Other) in Minecraft that surpass at least two significant appearances (Example: Halo has had a Mash-Up pack, several appearances in Skin Packs, a Splash-Screen text reference, and several character creator items); and if there is a Wiki with significant coverage on the subject (Example: Wookieepedia has significant coverage on Star Wars) then a Interwiki Link could be added to supplement the pages that exist (or will exist).

When I say significant coverage for a Wiki, this would mean wikis would need to have pages on (or significantly related to) most of the stuff DLC/Mention/References have. If a Wiki for example has no pages on the subject matters of the DLC at all, then it becomes difficult to argue a case to add a interwiki link, even if appearances in Minecraft are big enough. (We could add a Page Count limit also, I'd say 500 pages to be nice... but that is up for discussion if this is even considered)

Wikis would also need to be "around" for longer than a year and have had recent activity in the last month as of the proposal. This is to stop adding Wikis that have been abandoned, or are out of date.

We also shouldn't ignore the Fandom Wikis, despite many disagreements on hosts, the wikis on the platform may fulfil the requirements and we shouldn't ignore them. (Plus Wookieepedia is helping the Wiki in regards to the Star Wars content, a fact that while not contingent of adding them, is something to note they arn't ignoring this wiki existing.)

When I say significant appearances, the subject would need to be centre stage by at least one major DLC and supplemented by other stuff. The smallest example is Fallout where it has a major DLC via a Mash-up pack, and is supplemented by the Mini-game pack.

This would mean properties that have only appeared once and may never appear again (Owlboy in Skin Pack 2), or properties that have only appeared in a minor capacity in Skin Packs (Gears of War, Castle Crashers) and not a major DLC/Mentions/Reference/Other of their own... won't get Interwiki links unless they become more significant. (If Gears of War got a Mash-up pack then it would potentially be able to get Interwiki link, but at this current time it is only appearing in Skin Packs and not as the main focus)

Based on my understanding. These four would pass the guidelines I suggested. More may exist, but that is a later discussion to have.

• Halopedia: - Halo stuff. This accounts for several apparances in Skin Packs, a Mash-up, Character Creator Items, and the Spash-screen reference: https://www.halopedia.org/$1
• Wookieepedia: - Star Wars stuff. This accounts for several Skin Packs, a Mash-up, an experience/world, Character Creator Items, Spash-screen references: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/$1
• FalloutWiki: - Fallout stuff. This accounts for the Mash-up and the Mini-game pack on LCE: https://fallout.wiki/wiki/$1
• SonicWikiZone: - Sonic stuff. This accounts for the experience/world, the add-on, the texture pack, and various character creator items: https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/$1

Here is hoping this idea, or a tweeked version passes. I have no issues with the admin team changing my proposal if something more fitting is better, what I proposed was something to get us started. -CIA391 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 15:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the benefit of an interwiki instead of just using urls? Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

A benefit is that the raw text is standard MediaWiki markup. (This has a few bot benefits) This also means that editors in theory can treat said wikis like regular links which should be easier for a lotta people to understand. Links on the other hand may be done inconsistently causing a few weird bot issues.

It standardises commonly-used external links. (Main reason I am suggesting it be limited to "significant crossovers" as those are more likely to be commonly-used on pages)

Another benefit is if a wiki did change its url (An ancient example was Halo.wikia.com to Halopedian.com to finally Halopedia.org. Don't worry Halopedia wont change again. This is ancient history.) All that would need to be changed is the interwiki page entry on the wiki that changed url, and not botting the entire wiki to fix it.

Also easier to handle them via templates if you lot choose to go that route. (But that is certainly something I am not gonna talk about here but know Wikipedia opts for that as per their documentation on the subject) CIA391 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We can... just use templates. — BabylonAS 16:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

When I said templates, I meant Wikipedia often uses Interwiki links in them! :) - CIA391 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But is not required to do so. Neither are we. Interwikis are only worth it if the number of links is very large. — BabylonAS 16:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course it isn't required but I do think this might be helpful. - CIA391 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And I think it might not. Changing a template is much easier than an interwiki prefix. — BabylonAS 17:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It isn't hard to change a interwiki prefix though. Anyone with permission to edit it can do it in seconds. - CIA391 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And here comes the problem: the only ones who can edit them are people from the Weird Gloop staff. — BabylonAS 17:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Our interwiki table is static for technical reasons and needs to be adjusted in the backend, not Special:Interwiki, so it's a bigger ordeal than on other wikis. Note that we also have quite a lot of outdated interwiki links that should be or are in the process of being removed (i.e. most of the "bug" and "tweet" interwikis are unused, they've all been replaced with more fully-featured templates) | violine1101 ^(talk) 18:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose – Interwiki links to external websites should only be added in cases where we expect frequent links from all across the wiki, and I'm not convinced this is the case for these.

I'd be okay with adding interwikis to independent wikis if they're needed often enough. Links to Fandom (and any of its wikis) should always be external because we don't want to conflict with the Fandom version of this wiki when it comes to search engines. That being said, I doubt that these links are used often enough across the entire wiki to require interwiki links such that a template wouldn't suffice. I don't see any of your proposed interwiki links being necessary on more than a few pages. | violine1101 ^(talk) 18:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)