Hi,
for Norwegian Bokmal, Wikipedia treats nb: and no: interwiki links as equivalent. But the wiki is found at http://no.wikipedia.org .
Now someone from the Estonian Wikipedia noticed me that they prefer no: over nb:. So what the bot is doing in its current state (changing no: to nb:) would be exactly the wrong way.
What do you think about this issue?
Daniel
On 7/9/05, Daniel Herding DHerding@gmx.de wrote:
for Norwegian Bokmal, Wikipedia treats nb: and no: interwiki links as equivalent. But the wiki is found at http://no.wikipedia.org .
Now someone from the Estonian Wikipedia noticed me that they prefer no: over nb:. So what the bot is doing in its current state (changing no: to nb:) would be exactly the wrong way.
What do you think about this issue?
It's difficult. I used to have the policy "nb: on nn: or if there is also a nn: link", but that had problems because it tended to re-load nb: in checking links and reported it as lacking even if it was not. We could go back to it, but then would have to program it better.
Then again, no: has the advantage that the two versions come under each other in languages where there's alphabetization on code. But I don't think nn: would ever accept nb:.
I'm not sure what to do...
Andre Engels
Whatever it is going to be, please make a decision. At the moment, the nb: / no: issue is causing edit wars by bots. This is definitely not a contribution to wikipedia.
For the time being, I suggest not to make any changes automatically, and let the operators select no: or nb: by hand. Both links work, and if the bots just leave the link as is, final decisions are made by humans.
Anton
Andre Engels wrote:
On 7/9/05, Daniel Herding DHerding@gmx.de wrote:
for Norwegian Bokmal, Wikipedia treats nb: and no: interwiki links as equivalent. But the wiki is found at http://no.wikipedia.org .
Now someone from the Estonian Wikipedia noticed me that they prefer no: over nb:. So what the bot is doing in its current state (changing no: to nb:) would be exactly the wrong way.
What do you think about this issue?
It's difficult. I used to have the policy "nb: on nn: or if there is also a nn: link", but that had problems because it tended to re-load nb: in checking links and reported it as lacking even if it was not. We could go back to it, but then would have to program it better.
Then again, no: has the advantage that the two versions come under each other in languages where there's alphabetization on code. But I don't think nn: would ever accept nb:.
I'm not sure what to do...
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikibots-l mailing list Wikibots-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibots-l
On 7/9/05, Daniel Herding DHerding@gmx.de wrote:
for Norwegian Bokmal, Wikipedia treats nb: and no: interwiki links as equivalent. But the wiki is found at http://no.wikipedia.org .
Now someone from the Estonian Wikipedia noticed me that they prefer no: over nb:. So what the bot is doing in its current state (changing no: to nb:) would be exactly the wrong way.
What do you think about this issue?
I now see that at least once I've been corrected from nb: to no: even at the nn: wikipedia, which I would guess to be the fiercest on this issue, so I changed the bot back to preferring no:.
Andre Engels
wikibots-l@lists.wikimedia.org