https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60135
Nathan Larson <nathanlarson3...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Nathan Larson <nathanlarson3...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to MZMcBride from comment #8)
> (In reply to Nathan Larson from comment #0)
> > Currently, people are reluctant to get rid of obsolete interwiki prefixes,
> > because of historical reasons (i.e. they are still used in a lot of pages).
>
> I don't think this is a sufficient problem statement.
What's insufficient about it? Based on whatever criteria he deems relevant, a
system administrator might decide that an interwiki prefix is obsolete. Maybe a
system administrator simply thinks certain prefixes, like seattlewiki, are
cluttering up the interwiki table, because they'll only be used a handful of
times. When the decision is made to retire a prefix, it could be good to
migrate over to external links.
Whether bots or maintenance scripts are the best way to do that is another
question; see [[mw:Relative advantages of bots and server-side tools]]. If a
maintenance script is made available, then the system administrators can choose
one or the other. That script can be included, or not, in the core, but that's
a separate decision.
> > A maintenance script should be created to go through the iwlinks table, find
> > all the instances in which the interwiki is used, and edit the pages to
> > replace those interwiki links with external links.
>
> You're proposing a solution to a problem that hasn't been clearly defined.
>
> Interwiki links are a very old and established part of wikitext. They're
> used on millions of pages and in many other places (for example, [[mw:foo]]
> is frequently used in this bug tracker). Deprecating interwiki links, if
> that's decided, might mean telling people to not use them, but it probably
> wouldn't include forcibly removing the markup, I don't think.
With reference to the bug tracker, why would Wikimedia get rid of mw: as an
interwiki link? It's not obsolete, for Wikimedia's purposes. I don't see how
making a script available for making automated edits equates to "forcibly"
removing anything.
This may not be an appropriate use of UNCONFIRMED; it seems like you're using
it to mean "possibly INVALID" or "perhaps should be WONTFIXed". The proper use
of UNCONFIRMED seems to me to be more like "hasn't been tested, but could end
up being a WORKSFORME".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
