Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Transwiki Importer/Archives/2022

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DECLINED:

It is very rare that this right is handed out. The last time it was given was 11 years. You may ask an admin to do it, or you can do it manually. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 16:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PotsdamLamb

[change source]
  • PotsdamLamb (talk ¡ contribs ¡ count) - Per stated policy, this is my RfD as this is the first time I am requesting this permission. As I come across some articles, I have noticed we are missing templates that show up in articles causing issues. One example I just had to copy and paste manually is this diff [1]. Most of these get generated when bringing in infoboxes or other templates (like the one in the diff) that depend on a few different templates. I do this every couple of days. So to adhere to the rules for this right, here are the requirements:
  1. Gain a local consensus - That is what this discussion is for
  2. Have a minimum of three months on the project - I have bypassed that mark
  3. Have a minimum of 200 mainspace edits on the project - I have 2,068 manual edits; 3,095 semi-automated edits (ref: X-tools and according to this special page I have a total of 12,877 edits total (I also do work on wiki data)
  4. Have a clear task - Import missing templates as I find them. I understand the policies of this right, and importing the wrong thing can have a wiki-wide effect. We also do not always have an admin online to do these for us, so this will allow me to do so. I also understand this usually will be granted as needed, however, I ask that this be permanent. Thank you Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Support He has been doing a lot of maintenance with templates and bringing them over, so this right would be helpful for him. PotsdamLamb, just make sure you read the guidelines such as en:Help:Import. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lights and freedom Just to let you know that is the wrong article. That is a different permission that we do not use on simple. It is called “Importer”. The permission I am requesting is called “Trans-Wiki import” which allows me to copy over templates. There is no need for me to touch xml files. Thank you for your support too. I appreciate it. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PotsdamLamb Ok, I see. In any case, there's some important information in the section "Merging histories and other complications" about importing revisions transwiki and how it affects page histories. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose I am not opposing because I don't think you are not trustworthy for importer or blocks in the past or anything like that, but mainly because there is no need and importer is a dangerous tool. I am not sure how familiar you are with the Special:Import interface, but if you're not careful, you can end up importing way more pages than you intended to, like importing templates we don't need/don't apply here or overriding templates that have been changed to work for simplewiki, with the enwiki version. To reverse a lot of this, you'll need delete which is not part of this tool. Furthermore, if you are only importing every couple of days, you do not need the import tool and this is not what the importer/transwiki importer right was created for. It was not created to be given out indefinitely. You can always ask for import requests on the admins' noticeboard, or IRC if you feel an import needs to be done urgently, but I don't think there's ever any situation where an import needs to be done urgently, which is another reason why I am opposing this request. --Ferien (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien Thank you for your comments. A good example that I just had to copy and paste was for Achillea millefolium. I had to copy and paste over Template:Taxonomy/Achillea because the infobox for that species needed it. If you do not have it on our wiki, then the infobox has this nice big bright red writing in it. I am only importing the pages we need to make it work on simple to eliminate errors on our articles. I find this very tedious to do when I have to keep switching back and forth between windows (like I explained in the section for Vermont). If you notice on that template I did not bring everything over, there are a lot of red links. They may turn blue as time goes on. I come across this while working on clearing categories, especially Category:Taxobox_articles_missing_a_taxonbar where I am working on over 3k articles that need the taxon bar and since they are all species they are also broken sometimes because when the editor created it, they just copied pasted and moved on to get their counts up. My process is I create the template, preview it, look for any errors (the main errors I run into is it needs the LUA brought over) so I save the template, bring over the LUA, go through it and make sure anything that needs to be changed to simple from en gets changed, then save it and look at the the lua and at the template. If all is good, I am done, if I still see errors then I have to go through the process again. I am super aware of what to bring over and not to bring over and as always, if I have questions, I stop and I will ask someone who has experience. Thanks, Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 17:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I was on the fence about this until PDL stated that he wanted this right to clear out Special:WantedTemplates. There are 2,567 templates listed there. Just because a template is redlinked, that doesn't mean it needs to be created or imported here. There are reasons for templates to appear on that list that don't mean they are needed. These include but are not limited to:
    • They might be referred to only in a navigational box that navigates templates. These can be left red in case the template is needed and created in the future.
    • They might be referred to only on the doc page of a related template. These can be also left red in case the template is needed and created in the future.
    • They might be used only in stale userspace drafts. If these need any action, it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    • It could be a combination of the above, or even other reasons.
    Thought needs to be given to that and to what is created here, whether by importing, copying and pasting, or any other means. There is a lot of work that can be done to reduce the number of templates on that list without creating a single page.
    Besides that, after observing the way that PDL is testing a proposed bot to archive talk pages, I am concerned that he doesn't give enough thought to possible consequences, and I would not want to give him access to a potentially dangerous tool that could be used to make a lot of changes very quickly. For example, it would be very easy to import a template that already exists here and replace a version that has been customized for this wiki. I would want to see a more measured approach. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 To be clear the entire bot issue was not my fault. It was thought out and the developers verified it was fixed. As you have stated you are not familiar with how it works. This script and a few others are prebuilt by the wmf developers. I just tell it where to look for things. After both myself and Chenzw looked at we both determined that it was fixed which is why he gave me the trial run. You interrupted that by blocking the bot without a full explanation. Once we identified the issue I was able to get it to the developers who were able to fix it in a couple of days. Both Chenzw and myself once verified it again and I used AWB to switch out the variables and then ran tests today and they were successful. This was completely on the developers for this as you can see in the BRFA. For you to say it was my fault and I didn’t think it through is an insult on me and my intelligence. For you to oppose based on something out of my control and even Chenzw looked at the code and said it was fixed when it was not, is completely false. To the template issue. If you select the very first one that has 68 links waiting on it. That is similar to ones I’ve had to do by hand for items typically within biology articles. A lot rely on templates so just one number has to be updated and all the linked articles pick that up. So to your points above:
    1. Needed and created in the future - Why not create it now and get it out of the way?
    2. The doc page is what is in the main template page. It may link to other templates or articles but if you looked at the previous ones I’ve created if it is not needed to make the template work then I leave it red.
    3. For this one it would be case-by-case and those are probably the lower number linked pages like 1 or 2 links to it.
    4. Self-explanatory and would again be looked at to decide if it should be created based on what and how.
    I am not talking just about the "bot issue", and I am not saying that the bot issue was your fault. I am talking about the general approach to testing, specifically testing on live user talk pages, especially without permission of the users. I explained that on the message I left you explaining why I stopped the bot. That has nothing to do with whether I understand exactly what the bot code does. A trial is a test, and it is risky to test on live data, especially when the task being tested involves removing a large amount of data from pages (since archiving had not been done in a long time). I suggested some alternatives, but the trial was run on live data anyway, seemingly without caring about potential damage. Not only that, but the second approved trial was apparently also run on live data (but correct me if I'm wrong on that).
    As for how to reduce the number of templates listed at Special:WantedTemplates without creating the templates? Here are a few ways:
    • Some templates were deliberately deleted in the past, and can be removed from the pages that invoke them. This could be the case in pages that were created when the template was still in use, including old userspace drafts.
    • Some templates are referred to only on template list pages like User:Osiris/work/templates/4 or Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates without TemplateData. The solution for those might be to remove the templates from those pages, not to create the templates (although we should be respectful about changing any user pages that list templates).
    • Some templates go by different names than they used to here, or go by different names than are used elsewhere. The solution for those is to change the name on the page that invokes it to the current name. This could be the case in pages that were copied from enwiki where enwiki uses a different template or differently-named template than we do. For example, templates that have "film" in their name on enwiki often have "movie" here instead.
    • Some templates just aren't applicable here, and references to them can be removed. This could be on pages copied from enwiki. There could also be obsolete templates referenced in old userspace drafts; see note above about recreating obsolete templates.
    • In some cases, it might be possible to delete the page that references the template. Certainly not possible in every case, but should be possible for some.
    To answer your question Why not create it now and get it out of the way? Because our practice is not to keep templates that aren't used here. Would you empty Special:WantedTemplates just to add to Special:UnusedTemplates? I wouldn't. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 So honestly, I can’t keep doing this back and forth with you. You want to maintain the full simple Wikipedia all by yourself and not allow anyone outside of admins assistance, then be it. When I (or even others) offer any kind of help or want to do anything you are the very first person to say no. As far as the bot, that is up to Chenzw. He has read the code he knows what’s going on. Yes you did accuse me of the bot issues being my fault “ Besides that, after observing the way that PDL is testing a proposed bot to archive talk pages, I am concerned that he doesn't give enough thought to possible consequences…” This is an attack on me as an editor and anything that was done can be reverted. The very first thing that comes to mind is WP:NPA. Everything was taken into consideration based on the information available at the time. Bugs happen and the first tests were perfectly fine, then the developers introduced the bug the next day by updating without testing it. Not my fault. I have nothing else to say. Please close this request as I’m obviously not getting this right, patroller or anything else. Have a good evening, morning, afternoon whatever the case. Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 06:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PDL, I understand that it's difficult to manage conflicts like this, especially when your intentions are to make editing easier for other contributors through doing the harder work. It's often difficult to communicate and coordinate projects of this sort, considering that we don't have very much in the way of organization or planning, beyond consensus. I'm sorry that this feels personal to you, and there are definitely some bits of Auntof6's replies that could have been worded in a way to focus more on concerns about your planned actions rather than your competency in doing those actions. I don't think that there's any fault on your end here, and though I don't think we really need much work in this area (and what we do need can be done without this specific userright), I want to emphasize that your work here is appreciated and I hope that whatever conflict here can be resolved civilly. Wikipedia is not a battleground, we do not need to be at odds with each other. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[change source]
  • I don't believe requests for this right are usually discussions. Can you point to a previous request for this right that was discussed? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Auntof6, Wikipedia:Requests for trans-wiki importer/Creol was a recent one done like this, plus Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for importer/. --Ferien (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien Looking at the TI requests, I think we need a cat for TIs and also a Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests_for_transwiki_importer/ since importer is not used here. If you look at Creol's, it was listed as a unsuccessful admin request, of which it was not. I can also create a template for us to use as well. What are your thoughts? Or anyone else's for that fact (even though it should be a separate conversation). Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the requests for importer are actually requests for trans-wiki importer, as seen here. Maybe we could start a discussion on simple talk about what to call these discussions like we did with deadminship -> de-adminship and then once we've done with that, we can move onto the technical side with templates and categories. --Ferien (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 Please see point #1 above and the following reference: Wiktionary:Transwiki_importers and also please reference the same question you asked on the following with a response from Griffofwales. Wikipedia:Requests_for_trans-wiki_importer/Creol under the comments section. Thank you! Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PotsdamLamb: Thanks. I probably hadn't seen it because it's so rare: we currently have no users with this right (except that it might be included in the admin right). Also, I'm not sure why you're linking to a Wiktionary page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 I used that. All the pages say the same thing, enWP, meta, etc as only a steward can grant this right. So if approved, I then have to post this to meta so they can grant it for me. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is needed; you can just copy/paste and attribute. And regardless of whether this is granted, remember to check that we don't have comparable templates before you bring one over. Oftentimes we have a differently-named template that has the same purpose, and we don't want tons of duplicates. The English Wikipedia has many times more content templates than we do and it's preferable for us to keep our used templates minimal and only bring over that which we actually need to keep the content at the same level of quality. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vermont I understand, however, the problem is some of the templates also need templates so they function correctly. The cut and paste takes a long time to do plus then I have to remove anything that references back to enWP (like projects, portals, etc.) I also understand about the comparable ones, and some of the ones we have, also require templates that we do not have. On the example I gave in my request, it required 3 child templates that we did not have. This will also save me time because it is less clicking. I have to click to get the page opened, then click on start this page, go over to enWP copy the template and associated doc (if it has one), put all of that in simple, then go back get the URL and then back into simple add it to the edit summary then preview to make sure I did not miss anything that points outside simple then publish it, then I check it for redlinks and create what that shows is needed. With this right, it chops down the time greatly because I do not need to do all of the back and forth. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I'm going to put unrelated comments separately so that they can be responded to separately.) Just to put people's minds at ease (in case that's needed), could you talk about why we shouldn't be worried about giving this right to someone who's checkuser-blocked on enwiki? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 Honestly this should have no bearing on the CU blocked. I was actually cleared of the CU three days ago " TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login from my account and no socking. He asked me to repost this on IRC. This was his statement Prefer public, but basically I told 331dot that since there are no logins I can see through CU, I believe your story on loss of access and there does not exist from a CU perspective any reason that would prevent an unblock. Since you're banned, it now has to go to AN. I would post a new appeal on the current account and ask an admin to copy it to AN. If there are any questions, you should be able to reply using PDL The prefer public was from me asking him if he wanted to chat in a DM or in public." This can be located at EN:User_talk:PotsdamLamb and EN:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ban_removal_appeal_of_PotsdamLamb_aka_Galendalia which does not seem to be getting lifted anytime soon. I would need to wait a year before I try again. I only edit under this account and always have since being on simple and have not edited enWP in over one year (re: EN:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Galendalia/Archive. My PDL account was also nabbed in that sweep, however never edited under it. I hope that helps all. There is also no criteria about me being blocked on any project within the requirements. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be no criteria about it, but we are allowed to consider anything we want in forming an opinion. Meeting all stated requirements does not mean that a right will be granted. Thank you for this input. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 No worries. I am ok with discussing it. I love it here on simple so I will be around for quite a while. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If/when you import templates, I would want to see the associated doc pages also imported, the language on them simplified, and the categories changed to match what we use here. Are you prepared to do those things? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntof6 Yes and I have done that on some of them. Some are not that hard to translate because they are already simplified or do not have much writing on them. For the categories, I have taken out the ones we do not use and find ones that we do use and some already matched to what we do have here. Da LambTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Transwiki_Importer/Archives/2022&oldid=9429603"