Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edit summary

Can users who are removing interwiki links please link to this Wikidata project, it looks like vandalism otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I started this page for precisely that reason. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be a priority. Removal of content without a valid reason will be treated as vandalism or inadvertent error unless clearly stated otherwise. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put in several hopefully prominent references to this, and I've also asked d:User:Yair Rand if he'd consider adding a default summary to his script. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's priority number one. There's no reason for Wikipedia editors to accept these Wikidata changes. Explain or be prepared to be reverted on sight. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Should" and "should not"

I've attempted to remain agnostic on whether this page should give the community guidance on whether actions should or should not be performed. My opinion is that the RFC (unclosed) was a no consensus on any policy or guideline, so we should attempt to avoid giving such guidance. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

Further information: m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions and https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892.

All interwiki bots that run on the English Wikipedia have now stopped adding interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made a fork of that script that handles language codes with hyphens. See [1] William Avery (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not have attempted it without your shared insight into the problem of underscores and hyphens. William Avery (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It is rather odd how the API uses underscores and the rest of the world hyphens! I hate javascript though ;p Glad you managed to fix it! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

William: Would you mind contacting Yair on wikidata to see if your fix can be implemented in their script? Many users already have his/hers installed so it would be good if we can fix all of those. Legoktm (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fixed now. William Avery (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I really would urge people to link to this page in their edit summaries. I've just seen links removed by an IP, who can't be using a script to run checks. William Avery (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to a page that actually explains how to use this new "facility"? Deb (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend d:Help:Editing – It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

recent/early deletions of IW links too opaque?

I've seen some recent edits by User:Xqbot that initially looked suspicious and/or wrong. A little investigation revealed they are related this Wikidata project/initiative. This is probably a good thing, but seems a bit opaque right now in the early stages.

While there is the "edit links" thing over in the languages frame, these otherwise unexplained edits might catch editors unawares. Providing very explicit edit summaries along with a link to the associated wikidata page may be helpful during this transition. --Dfred (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I just spotted a message on the users talk page about this and I have also had a message regarding my bot even when linking to the wikidata page explaining what wikidata is and the entry where the wikilinks can be found. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Splits and merges

A useful thing to add might be advice on what Wikipedians are supposed to do to update Wikidata when there are page splits and page merges here -- what needs to be done to make interwiki links reflect the changed page scopes; and how much will or will not automatically be picked up by bots? Jheald (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been wondering that as well. That might be worth a broader topic at Wikidata, because those are issues which other wikis will have to deal with also, if it hasn't been discussed there yet. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Namespace bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T46536

• There is something seriously wrong with editing the interlanguage links on Wikidata for pages outside mainspace. I've started a thread at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Namespace ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  This is a known bug per the thread there. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  There is a fix, which will be backported during todays deployment. Legoktm (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed the large banners

They largely duplicate the actual content of the sections without adding substantially to understanding, in my opinion. I think the nutshell already captures the intent fine. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I put the top one back because we really do need people to see the link to the conflict section so that these things can get fixed and not languish forever. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder AGAIN

Please can all Wikidata editors ENSURE they place a link to this project in their edit summaries when they remove interwiki links. I mean a LINK, not just a passing nod to WIkidata. This roll-out has confused many editors and anything we can do to prevent unnecessary confusion is good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The only ways to fix the problems are a) tell specific offending editors and b) explain to specific confused editors. There is nothing else that can be done by noting your problem here. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't Wikidata editors paying attention to the concerns being raised here? Surely the project knew it was going to cause havoc (in a sense) and should have agreed on an approach which both educated and encouraged other Wikipedia editors to contribute to Wikidata rather than just telling them "There is nothing else that can be done by noting your problem here". This isn't Wikidata, this is Wikipedia, if editors continue to cause disruption by not adequately explaining their motives, then I suggest all Wikidata editors' edits should be reverted on sight. It's pretty clear there's no control, no quality control, no cohesive approach to rolling this out. Poor show. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the page to point out your problem. Period. Full stop. You need to WP:AGF with editors who are both removing links and reverting removal of links by talking to them. You should raise your issue at AN or ANI if you approach a specific editor and said editor proverbially spits in your eye. Anything less than that means that you have not followed the appropriate dispute resolution procedure to get the problem fixed. There is otherwise nothing that can be done here to fix editor behavior beyond what has already been done (which is to note here that edit summaries are encouraged but not required, in line with WP:Edit summary). --Izno (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what the fuck? I'm more than happy to see Wikidata edits being made, but all I'm saying is that this is WIkipedia, not Wikidata. Wikidata editors who start pissing about with Wikipedia pages need to explain what they're doing. I most certainly do assume good faith but those editors who are working on behalf of Wikidata need to realise that they should be clearly explaining their behaviour. I'm not going to dispute resolution or elsewhere, I'm asking really, really nicely that those people who have summarily decided to edit on behalf of Wikidata have some respect and tell us what the hell they're doing, even in the edit summaries. Now get over it and get on with it or expect your project edits to be removed as vandalism because they're causing issues, they're not being explained and they're disrupting this Wikipedia. I'm sure, if your project managed it better, it would be fine, but right now, it's a complete mess and Wikidata should be ashamed of itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, you're wrong. They're working on behalf of Wikipedia, NOT Wikidata. Because interwiki bots are disabled, the English Wikipedia is showing incorrect langlinks for many pages. By removing langlinks, Wikipedians are fixing the problem.

And if you think this is disruptive in any way, you're completely wrong. There's a mile long of list of interwiki conflicts that Wikidata is fixing. Legoktm (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Because editors are coming from all across the globe to remove links, even if enwiki isn't their homewiki. --Rschen7754 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to hat this section, because you're not making any sense. No, really, I've got no clue what you're trying to say which can even be solved at this page. If you have an issue with an editor, talk to them to fix it. If you have a problem with a class of editors, take it to AN/ANI. That's what it comes down to. If your simple problem is that you (and not the general you) don't understand what's going on, ask. Read the page to which this talk page is attached. Is there something you don't understand? Are there others who don't understand what is going on? Point them here, so that they can ask. It seems to me that solely reverting what are obviously to anyone who has read the description intended for Wikipedians as good faith edits would be disruptive and acting outside of consensus. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, are we done creating drama about the most mundane type of gnomeish edit since... well I can't actually think of a good analogy, to be honest. This is about as gnomeish as it gets. Here's my 2₵: Everyone should use edit summaries for everything. Especially if they're removing large amounts of text. Especially if there's an edit filter tagging their removals, with anti-vandalism patrollers monitoring it. Especially when a good number of editors will really have no reason to AGF with a classic type of vandalistic edit. Anyone who even needs to be told to use an edit summary is lacking in clue, and anyone who still doesn't use one is just plain old stupid. But, TRM, with all due respect, you're way out in left field on this one. There's all sorts of stuff you can do to streamline the transition, and a lot of us are working damn hard to do just that. For instance, Addshore just edited the "removal of interwiki links" edit filter to reference this page. We've got that box at the top of this page listing users to contact for help with Wikidata. So, please don't tell us that we should be ashamed of ourselves, especially when enwiki has had months to prepare for this; by all means, go explain things to editors who aren't using edit summaries, and to editors who are reverting them too, but don't come here and tell us that we should all be reverted on sight or something. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A friendly note to both "sides". First, I think it is clear that this software/functionality change, implemented on the single busiest Wikipedia by far, was not communicated adequately. Where were the watchlist notices or something similar? (Apologies if there were--that would bolster your case.) Project coordinators or other highly involved people should take a lesson here for future improvement in communication. You can't expect people not to be confused, yes, even six days later. The confusion is very predictable.

On the other hand, there is no need to divide people by referring them to WP vs WD editors. Most of the people responding on this page (except me, ha, although I once edited WP more actively) are long-term WP editors as well. Kolophon (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I started a RFC on the whole thing, and people stated very clearly that they didn't want to bother reading the pages I linked to as background, or figure out how to use Wikidata in the first place. So this isn't my fault. --Rschen7754 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I certainly am not implying you or anyone else in this discussion is at fault. Kolophon (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How's this for an edit summary? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow... pretty descriptive. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't sound like this is an issue causing problems to a handful of eccentrics - I can't get on with wikidata at all. So far I've had zero success in adding interwiki links despite help from another contributor. Clearly it was not well-communicated and still isn't. Deb (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear (if I may be so bold to speak on behalf of an entire project) that we at Wikidata are very invested in making these transition work, and definitely don't have a problem with people complaining. We have a bit of a problem with off-hand dismissals of everything we've worked for, but we wouldn't have put that box at the top of this page if we weren't legitimately interested in helping. (Full disclosure: The box was a unilateral action on my part, but it's seen nothing but support on Wikidata.) Anyways, I just wanted to put that out there.

Now, as to your actual point: Could you please specify what it was you were having a problem with? Maybe you had the bad luck to stumble onto an interwiki conflict on your first attempt. Or any number of other things. I'd love to help, but I'll need a bit more to go off of than that. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist counter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T47041

For info, something I've logged here. My watchlist currently states it has 949 items on it, but there's probably only 100 in total. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A very very useful link

While we do our best here to reduce the occurrence of improperly done link removals, if people would like to help clean up the ones that happen anyways, please see User:Addbot/log/wikidata. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He was logging stuff there where the bot was not removing all the links but now he's not since it generates thousands of entries which apparently weren't getting help. See also User talk:Addbot#A new log for Addbot?. --Izno (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I will periodically turn the loging section of the bot back on after the page clears up a bit!·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A bot could fix many of these

A bot would be able to solve most of the problems in the log. Most of the problems arise because the Wikidata item has not had its links imported from English Wikipedia. All the bot would need to do would be to go to the Wikidata item, run slurpwiki gadget with English selected, then try to remove the interwikis on the en.wiki article again. This resolves the problem 70% of the time. The ones that are not by this point fixed can then be added to a log that is sorted out manually. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As an example, a problem at Kerguelen Islands was solved by these two edits in this order: import interwikilinks from English Wikipedia and Checkwikilinks removes the newly imported links. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That might be true, but a bot to fix those leftover links probably would not be supported by the community at its bot request. --Izno (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bots will be removing interwiki links anyway. I'm not sure why they also wouldn't be supported in doing them more thoroughly. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

People can be weird here about the value of bots. Besides, in your test instance, judgement needed to be made. People, for whatever reason, don't like it when a bot gets to choose (aside from ClueBot, but even the mighty ClueBot has been limited to only 1% or 0.1% false positive rate [or something smaller] at the cost of nearly 30% of vandalism edits missed). Shrug. --Izno (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 28. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopfully I will work on a wikidata side to my bot but will not be able to until monday at the earliest! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR

In an earlier edit[2] I added a TL;DR hatnote:

{{hatnote|TL;DR: the Wikidata project removes interwiki links from Wikipedia articles, and replaces them into a central database that is centrally updated.}}

This has now been removed[3] on the basis that a nutshell template already covers this. I don't believe it does; three-quarters of the "nutshell" is bright red text that appears to be directions for bot operators. This gives little to a first time reader/encounter of any mention of "Wikidata" and what it might be. Links to this page are the only overview being given in the summary for bot edits performing the associated mass cull/migration of the interwiki links. This hatnote would not need to stay forever; however right at this moment it would, if allowed to remain in-place, give a succinct high-level overview in a way that reading the entire rest of the page does not. If the wording in the {{hatnote}} above is inaccurate, please can somebody suggest a better wording rather than simply removing it. Please bear in mind that while some people here are intimately involved with the details of WP:WIKIDATA, 99% of Wikipedia editors are not (yet), and 95% of editors have not even heard of WP:WIKIDATA. I would like to restore this until such a time as those percentages are more balanced. —Sladen (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The addition of more content which is not located in the nutshell doesn't make any sense to me. Plainly, the purpose of a nutshell is to TLDR, and if it is not sufficiently doing so, then it needs to be fixed. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets try the following then, (1) swap the top two info boxes. (2) move the Red information (which is aimed at bot operators already highly fairly with the subject) into the body. (3) try to reword the nutshell text and WP:LEAD to be more approachable to somebody with zero familiarity. How does that sound? —Sladen (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now tried[4]. Please review. The reason for just doing this rather than waiting a week or two and discussing, is because the removal of interwiki links is happening now. Today, this minute and this hour. There has been no announcement or public project-wide hatnote this is the first information that most editors will encounter about Wikidata, and as it stood/stands the article is not accessible to people unfamiliar. The unfamiliarity is demonstratably clear from the huge number of comments raised on the Talk: pages of bot operators performing interwiki link removal/migration. —Sladen (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not against that, but I don't think that's consistent with any other Wikipedia space pages. See for example the WP:LEAD you linked, in fact!
2. Except the red information isn't meant for bot operators. There have been a number of editors which have been working to remove the links as well, some of whom have been careful and some of whom have not been careful...
3. I am not disagreeable to the thought (nor is anyone here) but obviously the devil is in the details. Be bold, keeping in mind the first two numbers. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Additionally to point #2, there have been numerous requests here which have resulted in that addition, meant for users and not bot ops. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

*nod*, so it seems to me to what's needed is accessible "Howto" section (using the data that was in the red section). I appreciate that this information maybe targeted more widely, but as a first-time reader I did read it as a section targetted for bot operators (who are the people going to be performing high-speed/mass deletions and currently getting the feedback from doing so). Can you suggest some wording for such a Howto section, or should I just try to write something approachable? —Sladen (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The intent of the "Editing interlanguage links" was supposed to fill that need. You can probably start from there and refactor as necessary. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, third attempt has been straight reverted.[5]. Bearing in mind that large-scale edits are continuing (right now) and this is where people are being directed, please can somebody else try something. I'm loathed to keep trying this in the face of repeated straight reverts (in case it annoys people further). Perhaps another editor would be willing to try and add something they are comfortable with, and I can offer to assist with copy-editing/tweaking afterwards. —Sladen (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a straight revert; I incorporated your changes to the nutshell in an attempt to get to the middle ground. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is constructive and I'm sorry for my mis-characterisation, I have avoided any further changes to the text for the moment. I've tried three[6][7][8] further simple formatting-only changes to (try to) make the text that is already there easier to absorb. —Sladen (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved the line back up but left the paragraphing in place (this is also true of other guidance pages). I removed both the color and the small. Maybe that will fix any upstaging problems? --Izno (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta. This is an improvement over what was there before. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template interwikis

I have yet to find a template with a Wikidata entry, but I am curious as to how it would work, since most templates have the interwikis on the documentation page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is that "it just works". I fixed up {{Infobox mineral}} the other day, and it works fine. This also means that interface pages like MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (d:Q4885851) can have interwiki links since it isn't stored in the page text. Legoktm (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have to see if any of the tools check doc pages. I hate this laptop keyboard. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just consider that in the background, the Mediawiki software is looking for an entry in Wikidata that corresponds to the page you're currently on: en:Template:Foo, and displays all links that it finds. Removing the documentation sub-page links has no bearing on that operation. (The Wikidata page for the template Legoktm mentioned is d:Q52491.) I suppose you could go the extra step of adding the doc subpages across Wikipedias, if they exist, to Wikidata as well. Kolophon (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the /doc pages makes me nervous. That might be something to float on Wikidata first. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So far we haven't addressed subpages much. Technically speaking, something like a specific AfD, RfA, or SPI would pass d:WD:N, but clearly that wouldn't really be in the spirit of Wikidata. Anyways, one caveat for everyone: Last I checked, Yair's script doesn't work on templates. (By the way, there definitely are items for templates, though pretty much any non-mainspace items have been manually created, so there's less coverage there in the mainspace. For instance, though, I created d:Q4844001, since that's a template I find invaluable in cross-wiki work.) Now, if you want, what you can do is:

1. Copy all the links from the /doc page to the template proper. (Just don't press save!!!)
2. Press "remove interwikis"
3. If that's removed them all, you're golden. Remove them from the /doc page with the same summary you'd normally use, and be done with it. If that hasn't removed them all, then either copy over the links to Wikidata (I believe slurpInterwiki will work), or just go back to the /doc page and remove all the links that Yair's script removed, leaving the ones it didn't remove.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata scheduled downtime

Wikidata will be read-only from 19:00 UTC today through 02:00 UTC tomorrow (February 21) in order to upgrade the database schema. During that time the site will not be editable, and it will not be possible to add or remove language links. --Rschen7754 18:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The read-only time will be starting soon and ending a few hours late due to some delays in San Francisco. --Rschen7754 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, already started--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How to add interwikis to a newly created article?

I can't find instructions on that anywhere. Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Two options:

• First you'll need to check if the topic already exists on Wikidata. For example, if you know there is a French Wikipedia article on the topic, you may be able to find it using this. If you can find the right item, add the new article to the item.
• If no item can be found, you have to create a new item on Wikidata here. Then you can add all the interwikis to the item.

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that one can still add them in the old way and wait till bots notice interwiki links and bring them to Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Section "Semi-automated editing of links"

The side image with the comments starting with "To use Checksitelinks"... is cut by "mw.loader.load".... If it matters, am using Google Chrome on Ubuntu Linux. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you expand a bit? Is it on Wikidata? What is exactly cut? (I will probably not be able to help myself, but there are more experts around here, or we can invite them from Wikidata).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He's referring to layout of this page. It was a problem in the past, and I fixed it. I'll fix it again in a moment. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Too much nutshell

C'mon guys... the nutshell box keeps getting bigger and bigger! It shouldn't be any longer than a few sentences, and certainly, two paragraphs and a bulleted list is just excessive. Add additional boxes if you need to, but please don't stick it in the nutshell box. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything it's the second sentences to delete not the first. Thank you for shifting the bot guidance out to a separate box. The text now is still not accessible to first-time readers (who are seeing the mass changes and being directed here). —Sladen (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Knowledge base"

What is "collaboratively edited knowledge base" supposed to mean here? How is that concept any different from Wikipedia itself? Too vague, too empty. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikidata is a database which keeps data in a structured way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lack of advanced warning and no decent how-to guide for WP:EN editors

Having read this talk page and the associated article, I feel I have to comment, if only in the hope we can learn from this experience.

• Firstly, let me say that now I've worked out what it is all about, I think the concept of Wikidata and using it to record interwiki links is a very good one. In trying to work it out, I looked at the 'language' list of several dozen articles I've created in the last few months, and noticed that while most had the 'edit link' link, a few didn't. Digging into why, I realised it was because I had made an error in setting up the links (essentially linked to the wrong foreign article which already linked back to a different WP:EN article). I even eventually, by a process of trial and error, worked out how to fix this on Wikidata. So it is already adding value to Wikipedia.
• But here comes the but. The advanced warning was non-existent. If you were involved in the project of rolling out the use of Wikidata to provide inter-wiki links on WP:EN and you think it was well publicised, you are deluding yourself. I'm a fairly frequent WP:EN and Commons contributor, but until yesterday I'd never even heard of Wikidata. You may well have written RFCs, but they never came across my event horizon. And from what I hear above and elsewhere, that is probably true of a lot of WP:EN editors.
• So does that matter?. You could argue that many (most?) WP:EN editors are profoundly uninterested in RFCs for other Wikimedia projects. And the process that is going on seems to be largely automated. Maybe we don't need to know. I think that is profoundly wrong. The changes do impact editors, both by unsettling them with strange bot edits, but also by sowing seeds of confusion, eg. 'how do i create new interwiki links', 'how do i correct interwiki links', etc.
• Even now, there is no decent 'how to' documentation to answer a lot of simple questions. For example, in correcting the interwiki mislinks described above, I've ended up leaving 'orphaned' Wikidata items with no interwiki links. Is this ok; desirable; if not what else should I do. We desperately need that level of guidance.
• And the danger is that WP:EN editors are going to say "I don't understand how to do it, so I don't bother creating interwiki links", or even "This is getting too complicated, I'm going somewhere else".

It is not ideal to leave it this late, but not too late to recover. What it needs is somebody who understands the innards to Wikidata and how its is linked to WP:EN to think through the use cases that a WP:EN editor will encounter, write an FAQ for them, and publicise it. Put a banner on the top of each WP page "Confused by the new Interwiki scheme; see the linked FAQ". -- Starbois (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I rocked up here about 36 hours ago in much the same situation. It is however proving incredibly hard to get the documentation improved (see my repeated attempts above). Your phrasing of "[if] you think it was well publicised, you are deluding yourself" I think sums it up hook nail and sinker. and I hope the other editors involved with Wikidata take it on board. Something of this scale really needs a site-wide edit hatnotice (a la funding drives), and at the very least accessible high-level documentation being available before the bots start hammering. —Sladen (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I linked the RFC off CENT, VPP, and all the usual places... not really sure how else it could have been publicized. Furthermore, that is not an appropriate use of a sitenotice. Finally, it was discussed multiple times in the Signpost... if it's made it that far and you're not aware of it, not much we can do... --Rschen7754 10:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, to quote Starbois ten lines up. "What it needs is somebody who understands the innards to Wikidata and how its is linked to WP:EN to think through the use cases that a WP:EN editor will encounter, write an FAQ for them,". —Sladen (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Ideally somebody won't get reverted either…

I have raised the suggestion for a {{sitenotice}} at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Interwiki Wikidata mass deletition.2Fmigration sitenotice. People are welcome to discuss/contest the suggestion, but I would rather the energy was spent on improving the void of documentation. —Sladen (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to find to find the RFC referred to above, as I thought it might help in setting up the use cases, but all I can find is Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC. This isn't at all an RFC about the roll-out of Wikidata interwiki links, but rather an RFC about a specific issued caused by the roll-out (editors misinterpreting on-page interwiki blanking as vandalism and reverting). If there is a higher-level RFC, could somebody point me at it.

I've also tried to brain dump a few use case scenarios that the how-to document should cover. In the hope that they are helpful, here goes:

• I've just created an article on XEN; I know there is already an article on the German|French|Swahili Wikipedia on the same subject called XSW. How do I create an Interwiki link?.
• I've just noticed that article ZEN is linked to the wrong article on the German|French|Swahili Wikipedia. How do I correct this?.
• I've just noticed that articles en:YEN, de:YDE and de:YFR are linked together, and that cs:YCS and hu:YHU are linked together. Actually all five articles are on the same subject. How do I locate and merge their entries on Wikidata.

I hope this helps. -- Starbois (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there was no broader-scope RFC. Since we were not in a position to reject Wikidata, it was not really useful to have one. At some point, Wikidata will not only take care of the interwiki links, but also of the infoboxes, and this of course would be an important point to hold an RFC. Now it is too early.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your specific questions, I think they are very well formulated, and we tried to cover them here. However, it does not seem that many people go to Meta to read this, or know about the existence of this page, or care about Meta at all, and, indeed, we should have a local FAQ. I will see what could be done. At the first instance, they should be just answered at Wikipedia:Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another use case I've just fallen over:

• I've just moved an article, and all its interwiki links have disappeared. What should I do?.

-- Starbois (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Undent: The new "FAQ" section should be merged into the "editing interlanguage links" section where appropriate. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No objections from my side.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with moving articles that use Wikidata for interwiki links

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38729

I've just done a little experiment, and the result rather concerned me. If you move an article which has its interwiki links on Wikidata (and the in-markup links removed), then that article silently loses all its interwiki links.

Of course you can always go and amend the Wikidata item to point to the new article name, and they come back. But I'm guessing that it is going to be quite easy to miss that this has happened, and we are likely to lose a load of interwiki links this way. So I suggest three things need doing to mitigate against this:

1. The procedure needs to be properly documented in an FAQ (see previous section)
2. The 'move succeeded' page needs amending to include a suggestion (even better a link) to fix this up (much as it currently does for redirects)
3. A robot to either point out, or correct, cases where the linked page in the Wikidata item is a redirect page (as it would be after a move) rather than an article.

Thoughts?. -- Starbois (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To comment on the last, there is or should be a bot on Wikidata to "catch" moves, as bots used to before. I'm not sure if it's running yet. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, this would all be in the comprehensive documentation, wouldn't it. If there was any. —Sladen (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Will add to FAQ, but it is pretty simple: If the article is on Wikidata, it has interwiki links. If it gets suddenly moved and the links are not updated, the interwiki links get lost. Nothing really surprising. There are just two options: (a) go to Wikidata and update the link; (b) wait until a bot would do it for you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Currently my bot does it, however there is an open bug to have the software do it automatically. Legoktm (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a case that interwiki links will be protected from being moved (or edited) at Wikidata and so can't be moved (or edited), even by a Wikipedia administrator, without a Wikidata administrator? For instance, if I select "edit links" on the Wikipedia:Wikidata page, I get nothing...... Or is that a different thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your "for instance" is a bug of some sort. --Izno (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T46536

• Has this bug been reported? It appears to be related to editing pages in the Wikipedia namespace. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes the bug has been reported, it is currently at "Highest" priority on bugzilla. I don't remember the bug number of the top of my head. Legoktm (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC) (found it Legoktm (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

And the answer to the former question? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, there are no protected pages on Wikidata, though I can imagine that some temporary protection can be installed in case of persistent vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Corrected myself after checking the Wikidata protection log: there were instances of temporary page protections for excessive vandalism. Currently, no item is protected (but some templates are).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But of course interwiki links can always be set locally, the local links overwrite the Wikidata-stored links.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well there's a policy I believe which allows Wikidata admins to protect Wikidata pages, what I'm asking is would that then make it impossible for a Wikipedia administrator or editor to fix a potential problem caused by errors at Wikidata? Without having to seek out one of a handful of admins over there? (It may not be a big issue yet, or in particular for interwiki links, but I can see it becoming a huge problem when the project is expanded to include data in infoboxes for instance). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Until the protection on Wikidata expires, the interwiki can be managed locally on Wikipedia (by administrator if the Wikipedia page is protected, or by anyone if it is not).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this may sound like a stupid question, but you mean if an interwiki page on Wikidata is protected and contains an error that a Wikipedian wishes to fix, how can that be done? Would the old fashioned interwiki links have to be put back? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Either like this, or request on Wikidata (here, for instance). Wikidata is obviously preferable, since it will soon serve all Wikipedias.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But instead of being commented out, interwiki links are being deleted, correct? So the only realistic answer is to wait for one of the few Wikidata admins to fix it across all Wikipedias, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. Interwiki links are being deleted only IF the corresponding Wikidata item exists AND the link is on Wikidata (you probably noticed than in many articles bots leave one or two interwiki links - this is because for whatever reason the links are not on Wikidata). And the link can only be used on Wikidata once. This pretty much excludes interwiki conflicts (this also means we need to do some work by hand, but it is ok). Now, you are talking on a rather peculiar situation: The Wikidata entry is blocked because of excessive vandalism, AND the Wikidata links are suddenly wrong - were they not wrong before this act of vandalism? I can imagine this happening, but as far as I am concerned we are talking on some really rare cases (so far, this did not happen) which can be solved pretty rapidly on case to case basis (just drop the notice on this page, I am sure the case will be taken care of pretty quickly). On top of that we have two WP administrators who are also WD administrators, and more will be coming after successful RFAs, so I do not really think this is a problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's a problem at the moment but the more our articles depend on Wikidata and the more our content is governed by that at Wikidata, the less control Wikipedians (and Wikipedia admins) will have over the way each and every Wikipedia is presented. Oh well. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is in a way similar to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, this is nothing different to how commons works. If an image is fully protected and you want to update it, you just have to wait for a commons admin to do it, or do it locally. If you're concerned about Wikidata admins going all omg protect the items, I very much doubt that will happen. Just like enwiki, 99.5% of it will be unprotected. :) Legoktm (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• There are currently 3 protected pages, of which 1 is at full because of a software glitch on that particular item. I expect that as Wikidata goes live on more projects, the number of semi'd items will increase (as well as use of abuse filters), however I don't expect to see full protection being used really. Legoktm (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The only FPP'ed page on Wikidata is, as Lego references above, the item on Canada, which probably isn't going to be moved on En anytime soon, and is only protected due to a software error. However, if people want to implement a policy that we use {{noexternallanglinks}} on any pages that have their Wikidata items FPP'ed, that sounds fine by me. It's worth noting, though, that Wikidata admins are very fast to respond to requests, and we're promoting more every day. If you need anything done, just drop by d:WD:AN. As for semi-protection, we'll be adding a confirmed right within the next few days, and I imagine we'll dispense it pretty liberally (we already autopatrol pretty much anyone trusted on their home wiki, and I believe we'll be instructing admins to also add the confirmed right when necessary). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would hate for that to be policy, that's just a huge amount of FUD. Legoktm (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, TRM, if you want a workaround for the project namespace bug, you can add the WikidataInfo script to your common.js. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, it's not a problem at this early stage in Wikidata's roll-out. What worries me is when people will need to change data held at Wikidata which is protected. How often do people need to "change" pictures at Commons? I can't think of a single instance beyond reverting vandalism. In future, if infobox contents (and presumably source information etc) is going to be governed by Wikidata editors/admins, and when the rest of the world realises that Wikidata exists, there will inevitably be times where relentless vandalism will result in Wikidata pages being fully protected from editing, and not even Wikipedia admins will be able to fix that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your bug

Do you think it wise, in your second sentence of introducing this project, to say "For instance, the interlanguage links appearing on the left side of this information page come from d:Q4847210.", when clicking on that link demonstrates a bug? It certainly doesn't work for me. I would suggest a better example if you want people to actually understand what it is you're doing, and not demonstrating how buggy its introduction has been thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldnt see any bugs from clicking on the link. It goes to the Wikidata page for Wikipedia:Wikidata and shows that that page exists on 6 languages. Is it not right? —Soap— 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Seems it works for some people, but it's not working for me. Regardless, I changed it to Douglas Adams/d:Q42, one of my favorites ;) Legoktm (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't work for me under XP and doesn't work for me under Safari 6.0.2. Nice change. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha oops! I deserve a trout, seeing as I'm both the one who got that bug reopened and the one who added that reference. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Statements"

Where do I discover the dictionary of allowable "statements" for a given entry in Wikidata? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

SUL

Is there a reason why Wikidata isn't covered by WP:SUL? Jared Preston (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting some Wikipedia admins involved...

I went off on one above, a couple of times. And the reason is that I didn't get all this. (Sorry about that). As an engineer, and a secret purist, I love the concept of "one fact in one place" which seems to be key to the Wikidata ethos, so all Wikipedias use a centralised database of verified data. Wonderful. However, I've tried my arm at editing at Wikidata, it's taken me a while and I think I'm just about getting it, but I think it'd do the Wikidata project a favour if, perhaps, they invited admins (or keen editors) to get involved, along with a step-by-step guide on how to do the basics. I'm already aiming at becoming an admin at Wikidata because I think it should be part and parcel of ensuring pages on Wikipedia are still well formatted. But that sounds so lame. Effectively, all I want to do is to continue to do what I already do, but it seems to me that Wikidata is taking control of certain aspects of pages on Wikipedia (all Wikipedias) and that means that some of us Wikipedia admins really must learn what it means. Sure, right now it's just interwiki links, but according to the project page, it's going to be infobox content and more..... (very worrying!!) So, a Wikidata 101 is required, not just a FAQ. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a Wikidata 101 is a great idea. Would you be willing to start one, maybe as an extension of d:Wikidata:Introduction? A collection of "common bugs" would also be a very useful section so we don't have people asking the same questions over and over. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds like a good idea. Once I get a surge of constructive energy, I think I'm going to put together a Wikidata task force on client deployments, including help/FAQ pages for experienced Wikipedians (probably including separate pages for admins and/or those interested in becoming Wikidata sysops). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to help, really I would. I'm struggling with the interface to Wikidata, but maybe we could talk about this offline or at my talkpage at WIkidata so we can get a clue on how to do this? I think even the main page here for Wikidata is too technical for most regular Wikipedians. Getting a taskforce of Wikidata-savvy editors and a few experienced Wikipedians (perhaps including a few admins wherever possible?) to help the integration process is totally logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dropped you a note. Legoktm (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Would like to encourage other experienced Wikipedians who may have stumbled across this debate to ping me, we can make a difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In my mind, we can probably usurp Help:Interlanguage links to explain how to edit the links. Policy and guideline about when, who, etc. should probably stay at this page. --Izno (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You could, but what you really need is a helpful guide to assist experienced Wikipedians and admins etc to explain what you're doing and why, on a both a technical and non-technical level. Right now, as this talk page exemplifies, the roll-out of the interwiki usurpation has been far from ideal, and many very experienced Wikipedians have been left in the dark. Giving us a clue is the first step. No point in being defensive or bureaucratic about it, let's get a familiarisation section working for the benefit of Wikipedians and then you'll find the adoption of Wikidata will be much smoother! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes and other questions

Let me see if I have got this straight: the current idea is that all interwiki links will be held in one place at Wikidata, so a plain en.Wikipedia editor like me will be unable to change them without going over to Wikidata? If I see something wrong, I have to go over there and become a Wikidata editor too, and learn a whole new syntax and mark-up and so on? Or put up with the errors and wait for someone else to sort them out? And the Wikidata entry might be protected, so even an en.Wikipedia admin would be unable to change it?

Secondly, it is proposed that all infobox content will be held in one place at Wikidata, so a plain en.Wikipedia editor like me will be unable to update an infobox without going over to Wikidata? If I see something wrong, I have to go over there and become a Wikidata editor too, and learn a whole new syntax and mark-up and so on? Or put up with the errors and wait for someone else to sort them out? So there is a barrier to correcting, for example, BLP issues quickly and simply. And the Wikidata entry might be protected, so even an en.Wikipedia admin would be unable to change it? Conversely, most entries at Wikidata are expected to be unprotected, so an en.Wikipedia admin will be unable to prevent vandalism at Wikidata appearing automatically at en.Wikipedia and indeed at every other Wikipedia too? Even in a case such as a BLP? (The equivalent at Commons would be someone uploading a new image under an existing title, but that can be defeated by keeping a local copy.)

Thirdly, how does the centrally-kept infobox data link with the presentation of that data at en.Wikipedia? For example, will en.Wikipedia editors be able to limit the fields that are displayed? It may just be my perception, but there seems to be an implicit assumption that all en.Wikipedia articles will contain an infobox. Is that that right? The current consensus position at en.Wikipedia is that the editors of each article decide whether or not it would benefit from an infobox, and which fields of an infobox should be completed and displayed. Is Wikidata intended to replace that consensus with one-size-fits-all mandatory infoboxes on all articles? Great for objective facts about chemical elements, not so great for the complicated and sometimes contradictory details of a person's life. WP:DISINFOBOX bears reading and represents a strand of thinking shared by a signifncant number of serious editors.

Lastly, I trust these changes are not being imposed by fiat. Where was the discussion (or indeed announcement) on Wikipedia about the implementation of either of these proposals? The replacement of interwiki links continues apace, and is becoming a fait accompli. It is not the first time that significant changes have been implemented here that way, but it is far from best practice. -- Ferma (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox data will be available to the English Wikipedia, but it will be up to the editors editing various subject areas if they want to use any or all of it. --Rschen7754 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. That is clear. So, to pick some concrete examples, all of the information in the article at Kevin Pietersen would disappear over to Wikidata and away from the en.Wikipedia editors who maintain it? How is it going to be kept up to date? But Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would not be required to have an infobox if the consensus of its editors is that one not needed?

And my other questions? -- Ferma (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You won't have to learn a new markup. Editing Wikidata is about as simple as it gets. As for protected items... as I said above, that's fairly rare. If you're seriously concerned about it, though, once we have the confirmed right group I can propose that we confirm all sysops from all 'pedias with 10k+ edits. For there to be non-bug-related FPPs on wikidata, there'd have to be content disputes on Wikidata, which seems pretty unlikely. Of course, this is all no different than with Commons – we had to track down a Commons admin to tweak a color in our own logo, for instance, since it's FPP'ed. But, anyways... we'd all love to help resolve any issues in the transition, but if people could hold off from complaining about nonexistent issues, that'd be a good start. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Ferma, this kind of centralised database seems like a good idea, but with Wikidata and Wikipedia having different interfaces, different admins etc, it's going to become a complete nightmare. The default position must be that Wikipedia completely removes itself from Wikidata for this kind of linking, which seems a shame. Perhaps there needs to be some higher thinking here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As an En 'crat, TRM, I'm sure you could get yourself an admin bit on Wikidata within a week or two and a few hundred edits. Addshore's about to pass RfA with less local edits than I had when my first WP:PERM/RV was rejected. (Not to say you don't deserve it, Addshore! Just pointing out that we're a lot less intense about RfA there.) And, as I've said before, while Wikidata can be pretty relaxed on responding to some things (like creating convenient help pages ), admins respond to most routine requests within 20 minutes, and less than 5 if the time zones work out right. Let's worry about phase 2 stuff when it comes time to worry about phase 2 stuff. The way I see it, though, the only task we're taking from Wikipedia is a very trivial one; everything else is simply something we're offering Wikipedia. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Few clarifications. First, there is work in progress to make it possible to edit langlinks without ever leaving Wikipedia, by having your browser send CORS requests. Additionally, there's no requirement to have to use Wikidata, like how there is no requirement to use Commons. But what you're going to find is that data on Wikidata is going to be up to date faster IMO. For example, right now we have a bot that updates Alexa rankings using web scraping and regex. Now that bot would be much more valuable on Wikidata, since updates there would affect all projects. And it would have a much easier API to maintain, rather than using regex that needs to get updated everytime page layout changes (pretty often).

There are also a lot more minor things that can be taken advantage of. In a bit, my bot is going to use dewiki's Male/female people categories and tag over 500k biographies on Wikidata as male or female. Then it's going to take itwiki's very well implemented persondata template, and add in occupation, etc. Just using intersection of occupation+gender, we can start populating categories like Category:Women physicists, and much much more. Legoktm (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New Tool to help with solving conflicts

I have been working on a new tool, wikidata/checker.py. It takes a "Q##" as input, and gives information whether it is ok to remove the langlinks. If you look at Q42, it says the page has been migrated to Wikidata. Q298627 has errors, and are highlighted in red. Additionally, it can detect if the links are just redirects pointing to each other. If all the links match, it will even queue for Legobot to remove them on enwp.

Please treat it gently for now, it hasn't been optimized yet and is a bit slow. It's quite possible it has bugs, if you do find any, please report them :) Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Q56789, which I tried as a test did not work, but all the others I have tried worked so far. Thanks! --130.88.99.229 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thats because there is no enwiki sitelink for that page. I'll work on making the tool work with any language soon. Legoktm (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Something for all you Wikipedia admins to do

Here are 53 pages that Addbot won't fix. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page has no interwikis; the others with protection expire in a week or so and I would expect the bots to be running at intervals. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? A few of them are indefinitely protected, and several don't expire for months. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

See failed attempts here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help if you could clarify exactly what needs to be done. Do you just want the interwiki links to be deleted to make way for Wikidata inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably running a checksitelinks on each of them should do the trick. I'll go handle the Wikdata side, make sure all the links have been imported. (Incidentally, I found a number of Wiktionary redirects that have Wikidata items – Wikidata should probably discuss whether or not we want these listed. Someone remind me to bring it up on Project Chat.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't clarify what you want me to do....!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, on Safari, the script which provides the "remove interwikis" button doesn't provide an edit summary which, I think, is essential...... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The script doesn't add an edit summary in Firefox either. This is probably intentional, since the script can be used on many different wikis. You should probably add it by hand yourself. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha I want you to run the script on each of the articles! Pretty much the simplest ever use of an admin right, but there you have it. And yes, I've talked to Yair about this. He said that the reason it doesn't provide a summary is that that would be problematic for editors who are removing sitelinks as a secondary part of routine editing. I, for one, use the summary removing interlanguage links migrated to Wikidata; please see WP:WDATA for more information so often that it's the first thing I get when I type "r" in the summary bar. Still, though... perhaps I should go back to Yair and ask if he can write in an option for editors who plan to be using the script more for single-purpose edits than as an extra button to press when editing a page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It should add a summary, even if it's just to link to Wikidata. There's no point at all in running a script if you have to hand-craft an edit summary each time. That's beyond pointless. We must fix the script. How do we do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. The main purpose of the script is not to make your edit summaries for you, but to remove the interwiki links. If you are going to ask for the script to be modified, try user talk:yair rand. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it appears you disagree with most of the things I say. The point of a script is to make things quicker. If you then have to add a hand-crafted edit summary, it doesn't really make it quicker, particularly when all the script does is delete the interwiki links which are almost always at the end of the page. An edit summary that simply states "links replaced by those at Wikidata" or similar would be better than nothing at all. And yes, I'm also getting used to the idea that anything I note here is pointless to you Izno as you always direct me to individual users. Hardly a collaborative effort, is it? What would be the harm in centralising some of these discussions for the benefit of both Wikipedia and Wikidata? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No reason to be uppity. It does make it faster: You don't have to check all the links by hand with the script (duh). Could it be made faster? You think so. I don't. Why don't I? Well, do you want your edit summary in English? Spanish? French? German? Chinese?... etc. The script is hosted at Wikidata, which means it needs to account for all of the different languages being spoken which are soon to or which now use it. However, I directed you to the user in question because, in good faith, I assumed that he would be the person to talk to because he is the one who developed the script, because I don't know if Yair wants to make that effort. /shrug. As Pink& says below, you are welcome to fork the script if you are unhappy with its performance and are unwilling to consult with the actual developer, or if you don't have autofill capability in your browser... --Izno (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Uppity? Heh, funny. You should read some of what you write! Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean by "(duh)", but where I come from that's directly insulting. As for edit summary language, well since this WIkipedia is "English Wikipedia", I'd guess it'd be best in "English", right? As you would say "duh". Perhaps what would have been better would have been for someone from Wikidata to explain what was actually required here, rather than just say "use this script" which doesn't (a) explain what it's doing or (b) tells anyone else what it's doing. Wikidata appears to be geared up for three languages, so an edit summary in three languages is eminently possible. Again, please don't tell me "tell the user!!!!!". You keep missing the point about this being a collaborative effort between Wikidata and Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you use my checker.py tool mentioned above, it will automatically check conflicts/redirects and have Legobot automatically remove langlinks when ok to do so. Legoktm (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

But presumably it can't remove links from pages which are fully protected? Which is the whole point of this thread? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops I missed that. >.< I'll tweak it in a bit so that if the bot can't edit it, it will give the user a pre-filled edit summary to use when removing. Legoktm (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I ran the script over those listed above. Some changed, some didn't. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've raised the issue with Yair [9]. Of course, you can always fork the script and add whatever default summary you'd like (though as a JavaScript n00b I'm pretty much clueless as to how you'd actually do that). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a problem

Today I edited José Maria Sanchez-Silva that Addbot yesterday visited and migrated 5 of 6 interwiki links listed below the categories (diffs). I haven't previously noticed any such incomplete migrations and wonder whether this has diagnostic value.

The ES.wikipedia version of this article (biography of a Spaniard) is listed explicitly as one External link. I didn't investigate to see whether it was used as a source, although I noted the possibility on the Talk page.

--P64 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since using the Es-wiki article as a source would be an RS violation, I've removed the external link. As for the Addbot thing, Addbot doesn't remove links that haven't been copied to Wikidata. (It lists some of the ones that need to be copied on a page that you can see a few sections up here.) I've imported the links to Wikidata, and removed the Ru-wiki link from the article. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Re ES-wiki as a "source" I should have specified that I wonder whether ours incorporates translation of the other, which would require some template(s) that I mentioned on the talk page: Talk: José Maria Sanchez-Silva#Spanish wikipedia as a source? --which I have now fixed to specify that I suspect translation.

(This is the wrong venue for the second maybe-problem, I know.)

--P64 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved articles

Will there be a bot that looks at recently moved articles, and updates Wikidata entries if they have been left pointing to redirects?

I have just cleared up after a move I made by hand, but I could easily have forgotten. IMO we definitely need bots on the lookout for this. Jheald (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BetaBot/2. Eventually the software will do this automatically. Legoktm (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In case I forget (likely) please make sure that Help:How to move a page is kept up to date. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 06:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No interwiki links when you are in edit mode?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T47687

I notice that, unlike conventional interwiki links, the interwiki links from Wikidata disappear from the left-hand sidebar when you hit the edit button.

Presumably this is an oversight that somebody will be able to fix? Jheald (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I let the developers know about it. The discussion will likely take place on Wikidata, if you want to follow it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You´re talking about editing a WKIPEDIA-Article? Then it is no bug, because the interwiki links are not part of the Wikipedia article any longer. So there is nothing to edit.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the absence of the links from the "languages" bar when you edit. They were never there in the past, but now you get an "edit links" button without any links before it. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)