On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Strainu <strainu10(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-31 16:52 GMT+02:00 Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
- 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