Forum:Treatment of interwiki links to wikis no longer in NIWA

Dragon Quest Wiki has been unanimously expelled from NIWA. Therefore, we need to decide what to do with our interwiki links to them. This is starting out as a discussion rather than a vote, as the possible options are not yet set in stone.

My belief is that we have three options.

1. Keep things as they are.
2. Slowly go through the wiki and repoint/remove links. When done, delete the interwiki item.
3. Delete the interwiki item, breaking all the links immediately. Then fix or remove them later.

The resolution of this discussion will also be used for any such future cases, should there be any. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 18:53, December 11, 2022 (EST)

I would think Option 3 best, the red links (if they would be red links?) will make them easier to locate while removing them, and it shows unity with the decision NIWA has made. Toast ltimatum 19:00, December 11, 2022 (EST)

Another option (Option 4?) would be to update the URL of the dragonquest interwiki entries to point to the FANDOM Dragon Quest Wiki. Then if another Dragon Quest wiki ever joins NIWA, the URL could simply be changed again. This has the benefit of keeping most of the existing infrastructure in place. --Porplemontage (talk) 19:15, December 11, 2022 (EST)

I'm on Option 4. It's not the greatest, but it will at least keep our links from being destroyed.

That being said, I'm not sure if we should leave those links available on the infoboxes (e.g. Yggdrasil's Altar) -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 19:40, December 11, 2022 (EST)

I don't think we should be using the same interwiki template for Fandom Wikis as NIWA ones. Something about it rubs me the wrong way, although I can't fully explain why. Maybe its that it sort of puts them as equal options to NIWA wikis? Also, and this is more of a practical concern, using the same template for fandom wikis as other wikis would bring up weird issues like the Xeno Series Wiki, which technically "replaces" two Fandom Wikis (Xenoblade and Xenogears), but in both cases there are still Fandom links to them because although XSW is an official member of NIWA, there are still pages that are covered better by the Fandom Wikis since XSW is relatively young (Links to the Fandom Xenoblade wiki, Links to the Fandom Xenosaga wiki). Also there's cases where Fandom Wikis and non-Fandom Wikis might use different names for pages on a given topic, and that means that swapping which wiki things refer to isn't as simple as changing the interwiki table. DekZek 20:19, December 11, 2022 (EST)

This is basically reiterating what I said on Discord, but my recommendation would be to manually remove the interwiki links from the expelled wiki, replacing them with links to the best available alternative (even if that means Wikia/Fandom), then removing the interwiki table entry once all such links have been removed. Basically, this would be converting it to the standard we already use for series without a good independent wiki (for example, see the many links to the MegaTen wiki on Fandom on Joker). Miles (talk) 20:23, December 11, 2022 (EST)

I support this idea. We do this for practically every other character that doesn't have an NIWA wiki (excluding Sora, since the KH wiki is also run by porple), so I don't see why this should be a different situation. And if either the DQ wiki gets its shit together or there's a separate DQ wiki that has its shit together, we can change the formatting back. Aidan the Festive Gamer 00:38, December 12, 2022 (EST)

I don't know if SmashWiki has been on okay terms with Wikia/Fandom or what not since it left, but if you guys are okay with linking to an alternative wiki from that site, sure. Otherwise, go with Option 3. MHStarCraft 20:59, December 11, 2022 (EST)

Given the justification I mentioned before (namely, different wikis utilizing different naming conventions), I don't believe option 4 is viable, especially if this is something we plan to also do in any potential future cases. Given that one of the main benefits of NIWA is facilitating inter-wiki linking, proceeding with option 1 would significantly de-fang any motion to expel a member from NIWA. That really just leaves options 2 and 3, both of which have the same result in the end. From those two, I prefer Option 3 as it would immediately indicate the scope of the work that needs to be done, as opposed to option 2, with which the scope would only be visible by utilizing the search function, meaning most editors won't know it needs to be done. DekZek 22:31, December 11, 2022 (EST)

I think option 3 is the best course of action. I don't think the proposed option 4 is necessary since there's less than 60 pages to change links on (which is another Tuesday to me, easier still as a group). --CanvasK (talk) 07:35, December 12, 2022 (EST)

Option 3, Thegameandwatch The Nerd 09:12, December 12, 2022 (EST)

Option 3, even though I use Fandom, I still have my personal grievances with them, no “option 4” for me. Preceding comment that was ptotally signed by CaptainDabsalot (talk•Contribs) 12:37, December 16, 2022 (EST)

Going with Option 3. Linking to the Fandom one could work, seeing as other Fandom wikis are linked here, such as the one for Minecraft. 123VideoGamerNinja (talk) 02:10, December 24, 2022 (EST)

I’d personally avoid this as it’s still possible for DQ Wiki (independent) to improve its reputation over the coming year and still be the go-to option for Dragon Quest links even if they don’t ever rejoin NIWA Toast ltimatum 05:44, January 6, 2023 (EST)

I'm skeptical of that unless they get a new host. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:26, January 11, 2023 (EST)

It's looking like the userbase strongly supports the "break everything and fix it later" methodology, while the few staff replies are for the "fix first and then break" idea. Staff opinions hold no more weight than a regular user's, but the sharp division is interesting and notable. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 07:37, January 12, 2023 (EST)

I get the feeling that a few users, myself included, treated this as if it was only how to handle to DQ wiki situation. Dealing with the DQ wiki links wouldn't take very long so the difference between option 2 and 3 is meaningless. If this was about a wiki with a larger presence like MarioWiki or Bulba, then option 2 would probably be the best. --CanvasK (talk) 07:44, January 12, 2023 (EST)

Note: Option 3 is going to be more painful to fix. MediaWiki has tools to track links that use interwikis. links to dragonquest: and links to dragonquestwiki:. If you remove the definition of the interwiki, you'll no longer be able to query them, and you'll only see red links when viewing those pages, and sometimes you won't see them until the page gets edited. An alternate solution is to edit the interwiki, pointing the URL to a page on this same wiki (for example, a page in the Project: namespace explaining that you're followed a broken link). --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 18:53, January 12, 2023 (EST)

Using "insource:dragonquest" in advanced search should work whether the links work or not. The search also catches cases where we use templates to link to interwikis, which the API doesn't catch. --CanvasK (talk) 19:10, January 12, 2023 (EST)

I'm late on this but the one I go with is option 2. I personally don't really like the idea of deleting the interwiki term and then having a ton of red links to fix as option 3 suggests. Option 2 is basically what Miles said and what I believe is the best idea, and we already link to either Wikipedia or even (dare I say it) Famdom for when we don't have an independent Wiki to link to, and the same should be done here. Omega Toad, the Festive Shiny Litten. (Seasons greetings!) 22:39, January 27, 2023 (EST)

I should really make sure I finished everything I needed to say before submitting. I don't like the idea of having to have a ton of pages with red links as will happen should option 3 pass, due to the sheer amount of pages containing red links that will need to be fixed. Sure it wouldn't have been too much of an issue if it were just Dragon Quest Wiki, since they were linked to in only 60 pages, but imagine if say Super Mario Wiki were to leave the NIWA and we immediately delete the interwiki term (for context, we will have over 580 pages with red links needing to be replaced). If it were solely meant for DQW then option 3 wouldn't have been an issue, though I still don't agree with it being the best option, but to do this for future cases especially for a very large wiki would not be the best course of action. Omega Toad, the Festive Shiny Litten. (Seasons greetings!) 03:00, January 28, 2023 (EST)

I'll choose option 2, since Option 1 may cause issues, and Option 3 will make users who are viewing pages unhappy. - The Pro Gamer