On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-10-31 16:52 GMT+02:00 Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjor...@wikimedia.org>: > > - If revisions are imported using the "Upload XML data" method, it > will > > be required to fill in a new field to indicate the source of the > edits, > > which is intended to be interpreted as an interwiki prefix. > > What if that is not possible? How are imports between non-related > websites handled?
It's always possible to enter in something, whether an actual interwiki link is defined or not. But why not define one? > I've just recently encountered a situation when a > MediaWiki upgrade was considered easier to be done by exporting the > old wiki and importing it in the new one. > That seems like a strange situation. But in a case like that, recreate the user table first and no edits should need prefixing. > > > - If revisions are imported using the."Import from another wiki" > method, > > the specified source wiki will be used as the source. > > - During the import, any usernames that don't exist locally (and can't > > be auto-created via CentralAuth[4]) will be imported as an > > otherwise-invalid name, e.g. an edit by User:Example from source 'en' > would > > be imported as "en>Example".[5] > > Why not use "~" like when merging accounts? Sounds like yet another > "code" is growing for no obvious reason. If you are worried about > conflicts, there shouldn't be any, as the interwiki prefix is > different from the shortcut used on SUL. > You mean like the appended "~enwiki" used during SUL finalization? Because legitimate usernames, including those from SUL finalization, can contain '~', thus recognition is much more difficult and we'd have to do a lot more work to handle conflicts when they arise. -- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
