Interwiki links good or bad? also interwiki bug links broken.

Toolbox#Add_a_Link says "There are three kinds of links", but there is another kind in MediaWiki, an Interwiki link to another web site. E.g. [[techbase:Toolbox]] produces techbase:Toolbox. Interwiki links don't show up as external, don't trigger external link spam prevention measures (for better or worse...), and can hide details of the other web site's syntax. If you look at the UserBase's interwiki list /api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=interwikimap you can see it has entries for techbase, userbase, and English Wikipedia, plus a bunch of old outdated wikis (DrumCorpsWiki ??!).

Interwiki linking is nifty, but I don't know if people want to promote this. Just pasting in a URL is simpler.

UserBase also has an empty interwiki link for bugs (e.g. [[bugs:408967]] produces bugs:408967), and a garbled interwiki link for bug with a bad URL and a bogus language setting ([[bug:408967]] produces). This may not matter or be intentional since the recommended way on UserBase to link to bugs is to use the {{bug|NNNN}} template, but these bad interwiki links should either be fixed or removed from the interwiki table along with all the other cruft. I think the administration of the interwiki map is up to someone with database access on the server since this wiki isn't using the Interwiki extension; should I file a bug for this sort of system admin task?

00:28, 21 June 2019


I didn't know about the Interwiki, this looks neat. It's probably not worth to update all community/techbase/wikipedia/... links, but for new links it can be nice to have.

Could you fill a system admin task at, for either adding some new interwiki links (e.g ArchLinux wiki,,,, ...) or adding the extension.


11:44, 21 June 2019

simple things like line break are missing but html tags are supported but not mentioned

Hello, I've just learned that you can use < br > (without spaces) to get it done. Could you list or reference to the supported html tags

12:12, 26 February 2019

I suppose userbase support a similar subset of html tags as Wikipedia. So here is a list.

Because userbase wasn't updated with a recent version of mediawiki since some times, the list could differ a little.

Don't hesitate to create new content, I can fix any formatting issue :)

12:32, 26 February 2019

A duplicate Toolbox page with technical base ?

Hi all

Please can someone have a look and provide an anwser for me to tidy the duplicate toolbox pages:


07:21, 25 June 2018

Hi Christian

I get Your point. I think we need to be cautious here - techbase and userbase serves different purposes, and that might be reflected in the tools available on the two wikis and their "best practices" .

Our whole tangled mess of help pages are up for revision "any day now" :-) so it might be worthwhile to find out if the techbase pages should simply link to userbase or whether techbase needs its own pages.

In the meantime I wouldn't spend too much time on help pages. They are meant for contributors, and since original contributions are always written in English contributors probably understand English well enough to not need a translation. For that reason I would consider translating these pages a very low priority (but it is of course your call entirely).

04:55, 26 June 2018

youtube embed is broken

Hi WikiMasters. The youtube embed is broken. I guess it is a global thing. Have you graded the software?

10:43, 9 August 2014

Hi Ttguy

Could you refer to an example, please?

05:00, 1 September 2014

The video applet was removed in Amarok 2.8, if you still see it, then check with your distribution, they should disable it.

15:00, 4 December 2014

Template malformed?

Kde3-button.png appears in the line, while for Kde4-button.png appears into a new line.

It is normal and desired? No in this sentence.

13:56, 28 December 2011

Nice catch. The two templates seems to have been created by different persons at different times. I guess the behaviour of the {{KDE3}} template is desirerable.

If there are no objections within the next few days I'll edit the {{KDE4}} to behave the same way.

14:28, 28 December 2011

Before I saw this, I edited it the other way around :-) The reasoning is this.

There are some cases where there was a KDE3 version and a KDE4 version where comments didn't apply to both, so we needed an indicator. There was also in my mind the future need to remove KDE3-specific material once it is no longer used, therefore the KDE3 icon should be linked to a (hidden) category. It's hidden purely because its purpose is operational, not of any value to the reader. Since it is likely to be some years before KDE4 is deprecated I don't see any need for that to be linked to a category (and it would be easy to add such a link if it becomes useful).

Until the advent of RHEL 6 KDE 3 was still being used by a substantial number of people. Now all the enterprise distros have moved over to KDE4, that leaves the Trinity project people. My own opinion is that we should wait to see whether the Trinity project thrives. If it does, we leave things as they are. If it disappears, we should then remove the KDE 3 content.

Any other opinions?

19:11, 28 December 2011

I agree about the hidden category. However, I don't think that was what Abella was questioning. Rather, it was the displaying of the icons - The KDE3 displays inline while the KDE4 forces a paragraph break, placing itself between.

My feeling is, that we need the hidden KDE3 category (and we probably don't need one for KDE4) but that the displying of the two should be the same, and in fact like the KDE3 one.

19:54, 29 December 2011
Edited by author.
Last edit: 10:57, 30 December 2011

Yes, but by editing it to make it virtually the same template as KDE3 I should have fixed that as well :-D Didn't test it, though, so

Kde3-button.png Does this display on the same line?

Kde4-button.png And this?

20:12, 29 December 2011

You forgot to put in the </noinclude>, so the KDE4 icon didn't display at all. Fixed that.

22:06, 29 December 2011

This page was last edited on 28 December 2011, at 13:56. Content is available under Creative Commons License SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.