Forum:SH:Allowing select interwiki links in External links

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Allowing select interwiki links in External links
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 13:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I would like to discuss a suggestion I brought up in the Discord and briefly talked about there with Spookywilloww and others about amending the Layout Guide's stance on using "non-official websites" in the External links sections of both in-universe and real-world articles - specifically where it restricts the usage of interwiki links. As it stands, the LG says that non-official websites should only be linked to in External links if they are cited in the body of the article AND contain information primarily about the article subject. However, I feel that with interwiki links (linking to Wikipedia or trusted Star Wars-related wikis which have a scope that differs from Wookieepedia such as the Star Wars Battlefront Wiki, Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki, or even Brickipedia), not including these interwiki links is actually a bit of a disservice to readers. Especially considering wikis and other fan-run databases are never used as citations anyways.

With Wookieepedia's scope primarily focusing on in-universe and real-world content (the latter specifically media and creators), there are plenty of things which are not covered at all on Wookieepedia but other wikis specialize in. This includes, but is not limited to video game gameplay information, LEGO and other product appearances, extended biographies of real-world people, and the like. In fact, there are already cases in which non-official interwiki links are being used which would technically go against policy; I mean, look at all the articles that use {{SWTOR Wiki}} and the the many more that use {{WP}}.

That brings me to the next point - there has already been a Consensus Track in the past which approved the usage of {{AurebeshWiki}} in External links for real-world media articles. This further conflicts the stance outlined in the Layout Guide, which adds to why I believe interwiki links should be allowed site-wide without exception but within reason.

If this moves on to a Consensus Track, my plan is to have the community vote on whether to support or oppose the inclusion of certain wikis in addition to voting on the policy change. Right now, I'm starting with a list of wikis which already have link templates and therefore have been linked to before, minus Aurebesh Wiki as it has already been voted on and the Star Wars: Card Trader Wiki as it is linked to by {{SWCT}}. The Minecraft Wiki ({{MinecraftWiki}}) is also not included as it being a "forked" wiki from Fandom has caused a lot of issues, therefore it is only used on certain pages. So here's the list as it stands:

Focuses on Star Wars content
Focuses on Star Wars-adjacent or licensed content

To summarize: I propose that interwiki links should be allowed to be added to the External links section of ANY mainspace article so long as the majority of the page being linked to focuses on the article subject, and the wiki(s) being linked to is/are trusted by the Wookiepeedia community per consensus.

Let me know if you'd like further clarification on my suggestion!

MegaZeph (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Okay, so after some discussion and the gracious insight of Imperators II it appears that the Layout Guide has been misinterpreted and it actually DOES allow for the use of interwiki links in the External links sections of articles. These are covered under the "Databases" section of the linking hierarchy, particularly where it mentions "Other, including, but not limited to: IMDb, MobyGames, other wikis." The "other relevant pages" section is simply referring to pages not covered by the other sections of the hierarchy. So... that means my initial practice of adding Brickipedia links to articles (some of which were status articles) wasn't actually going against policy as had been brought up! Great! But I think this calls for a revision of the wording in the Layout Guide and codification of what wikis are allowed and which ones are not, so I think we can move forward to do just that. Check the list of wikis above (minus the Fallen Order Wiki and the Recipes Wiki) and let me know what you think about putting those up for a vote.

Here's my proposed revision for this portion of text in the Layout Guide to make its intention more clear:

Before:

  • Restrict "other relevant pages" listings only to the most critically relevant pages with respect to an article's coverage. Furthermore, those pages should be listed in chronological order of publication, instead of alphabetic order.
    • Star Wars Blog posts from the Pop Culture; Quizzes and Polls; and Films categories are typically prime examples of pages that are not appropriate for the External links. However, any Blog post (featuring the article's subject) that is cited in the course of the article must be listed in the External links.
    • Other pages (from non-official websites) cited in the course of the article that cover only a fraction of the article's subject should not be included in the External links. For example, an article only covering the announcement of the participation of a creator to a new work should not be included, unlike an article that would cover a large segment of their career. Interviews are considered particularly relevant, and should be systematically listed, as long as they focus on Star Wars.

After:

  • Unlike other sections of the hierarchy, listings of "other relevant pages" (from non-official websites) in External links should be restricted to only the most critically relevant pages with respect to an article's coverage. Pages used as citations in an article's text that cover only a fraction of the article's subject should not be included. For example, an article only covering the announcement of the participation of a creator to a new work should not be included, unlike an article that primarily covers the creator and their Star Wars career. Interviews are considered particularly relevant, and should be systematically listed, as long as they focus on Star Wars. These pages should be listed in chronological order of publication, rather than alphabetical order.
    • Star Wars Blog posts from the Pop Culture; Quizzes and Polls; and Films categories are typically prime examples of pages that are not appropriate for the External links. However, any Blog post (featuring the article's subject) that is cited in the course of the article must be listed in the External links.

Also, the addition of a new "supported wikis" section under the External links heading:

  • Interwiki link templates to other wikis in the Fandom network should be restricted to the list of communities below, which have been approved by the Wookieepedia community.

MegaZeph (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Agreed on most. Disagreed on Fallen Order wiki - extremely small, almost entirely referenceless, and no admins have edited fullstop since 2020. Also hard disagree on Recipes wiki - its a) not currently used on articles, and the example provided was deleted by Fandom Staff and b) is a unsourced cesspool without any style guidelines or rules where people can post whatever, usually unmoderated. Given that I could personally go write a bunch of fanon or one of my other's recipes and post it there, I don't think such content (often low quality) is fit to be pointing to on Wook and could, often, be harmful if we're implying those have validity. The rest of the list looks fine; many of them are major ones with actively editing communities that moderate themselves. And sidenote, any of the templates with spaces should be renamed to remove them.—spookywillowwtalk 03:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Pointing out for onsite record as well (and have sent to SOAP for cleanup, at least some) that the Recipe Wiki contains slurs and other sexist dogwhistles and insults on some other recipes. It is very much an unmoderated hellscape that, due to not being moderated, belittles and degrades marginalized communities due to allowing such content, since it has no style guide or policies. Even if the rest of this doesn't go on, which it should, because a list of them means we can determine that we don't link to bad wikis actively since many SW ones are run by now-banned Wookieepedians, Recipe Wiki's template should be TC'd regardless. It's 2025 enough to say that, similar to the vote disallowing links to the Russian wiki based on its blatantly transphobic and queerphobic content, we shouldn't be striving to associate ourselves with a place like Recipe Wiki until it's somehow gotten massively in shape.—spookywillowwtalk 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Do wanna add that the addition of Minecraft Wiki was approved by staff and is much more preferable than the Fandom one, so there's not really an issue with it just bc it's a fork. And per Spooky, no on the JFO wiki. A lot of their coverage are even more lack luster than our's imo and the lack of moderation too. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 03:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • I was told by Spooky that the Minecraft Wiki template, while approved by Fandom, was only approved for a limited selection of pages and therefore shouldn't be included in the vote since linking to it is technically against their Forking Policy. Not sure why we're not allowed to just use it site-wide; it's ultimately not "up to" Wookieepedia how it's used I guess. Maybe the template should include a notice about that. MegaZeph (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
      • Mm yeah Bonzane, if looking back at the rather mess of trying to get it approved (see #staff), it was not wholesale approval to add it to every article like grass and sand. We got it approved via template bypass for specific referential need. It physically cannot be included as an option in this add it to everything vote without further authorization. Even if we did CT it, the vote outcome is moot and unenforceable without said approval. And it is much harder to justify adding it to a page like water for a specific relevance or resource rather than the Minecraft-heavy pages we took time to make a case for. And in truth, we are quite lucky to even have an exception - we are the sole wiki on Fandom with a limited Forking link exception. Unnecessarily flaunting this and getting attention of other wikis will only result in even that being taken away as we get called out for favoritism.—spookywillowwtalk 04:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think we're misinterpreting what the Layout Guide is currently saying. Notice that in the listing hierarchy present in that section it says "4.2 - Other, including, but not limited to: {{IMDb}}, {{MobyGames}}, other wikis" and then "5 - Other relevant pages" and then the clause says "Restrict "other relevant pages" listings only to the most critically relevant pages with respect to an article's coverage. Furthermore, those pages should be listed in chronological order of publication, instead of alphabetic order. [...] Other pages (from non-official websites) cited in the course of the article that cover only a fraction of the article's subject should not be included in the External links. For example, an article only covering the announcement of the participation of a creator to a new work should not be included, unlike an article that would cover a large segment of their career. Interviews are considered particularly relevant, and should be systematically listed, as long as they focus on Star Wars." So I don't think that last restricting clause necessarily applies to interwiki links. Imperators II(Talk) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
    • Now that you point this out, I think you're right. If that's indeed the case, then perhaps that section would benefit from a slight rewrite to make the connection to the "other relevant pages" portion more obvious. If even a bureaucrat is confused on the wording, that's probably a bad sign - so maybe the CT could be on changing that portion of the LG and establishing a community-supported list of wikis to link to? MegaZeph (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need a specific policy to say which wikis can be linked, In my opinion, this would be a form of rules bloat. However, I generally agree with the wikis that we do list, with the exceptions noted above such as JFO wiki and Recipies wiki, which we should not link to. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 18:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)