Today a question appeared: what to do if an edit is request that actually does not change the content (e.g. setting the sitelink of an item to X when it is already X in the language).
Currently, the API reports an error because the save failed (there is nothing to save, obviously). If you try the same on MediaWiki core, it behaves as if everything went well, but doesn't do a save (i.e. the save does not happen, but the state is the same and thus the software just lets you proceed as if you have made the edit).
(Actually, the front end is currently too smart to let you do that, but a similar situation appears when someone else has changed it to the value you wanted to change it to while you have been viewing the page. Right now we make a conflict. Is this the desired behavior?)
We should be consistent through all API modules, obviously.
Cheers, Denny
On 27.11.2012 17:10, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Today a question appeared: what to do if an edit is request that actually does not change the content (e.g. setting the sitelink of an item to X when it is already X in the language).
Currently, the API reports an error because the save failed (there is nothing to save, obviously). If you try the same on MediaWiki core, it behaves as if everything went well, but doesn't do a save (i.e. the save does not happen, but the state is the same and thus the software just lets you proceed as if you have made the edit).
It should do nothing, report success, but include a warning that nothing was done. lastrevid should contain the latest revision ID.
I'm not sure why the API would report an error in such a case. It shouldn't really, and I thought I looked at the test case for this recently. EditEntity at least supports it, as far as I know.
-- daniel
Hi,
On 27/11/12 17:10, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Today a question appeared: what to do if an edit is request that actually does not change the content (e.g. setting the sitelink of an item to X when it is already X in the language).
Another question: What shall we do when refernces look like this:
w:en:Law_X#Germany -> w:de:Law_X_(Germany) w:en:Law_X#Swizzerland -> w:de:Law_X_(Swizzerland) w:en:Law_X#Austria -> w:de:Law_X_(Austria)
While having 3 articles in German it is always the same article in English. AFAIK something like that is not possible to reflect in WikiData.
Cheers
Marco
On 27.11.2012 19:30, Marco Fleckinger wrote:
While having 3 articles in German it is always the same article in English. AFAIK something like that is not possible to reflect in WikiData.
Correct.
In such a case, old style language links have to be used in the wikitext. Note however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage link to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks ago, unrelated to wikidata).
One solution would be to create a "hub" page for the law in general on the German wikipedia too.
-- daniel
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is that a problem?
I think there are a lot of articles especially in the german wikipedia where you don't have FooBar but Foo#Bar.
LB
On 27.11.2012 19:30, Marco Fleckinger wrote:
While having 3 articles in German it is always the same article in English. AFAIK something like that is not possible to reflect in WikiData.
Correct.
In such a case, old style language links have to be used in the wikitext. Note however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage link to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks ago, unrelated to wikidata).
One solution would be to create a "hub" page for the law in general on the German wikipedia too.
-- daniel
On 28.11.2012 09:47, Lukas Benedix wrote:
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is that a problem?
Hm... yes, that's a problem. We are relying in multiple places o nthe assumption that there is only one data item associated with a wikipedia article. For example, we use the sitelinks from THE item associated with the wikipedia page Foo to show language links for Foo.
If we allow Foo#Bar and Foo#Quux, there would be multiple. I guess section links could be considered "additional" links, not defining the target page's association with a data item. But it would require quite a few structural and conceptual changes to really support that. It's not impossible, but needs thought & discussion.
-- daniel
Let us see, once Wikidata has replaced most of the local language links, what is left and how the world looks then. This would be then the appropriate moment to consider how to further extend the system. Right now we would be building on too many assumptions that we cannot validate for a rather small benefit.
Cheers, Denny
2012/11/28 Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is that a problem?
I think there are a lot of articles especially in the german wikipedia where you don't have FooBar but Foo#Bar.
LB
On 27.11.2012 19:30, Marco Fleckinger wrote:
While having 3 articles in German it is always the same article in English. AFAIK something like that is not possible to reflect in WikiData.
Correct.
In such a case, old style language links have to be used in the wikitext. Note however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage link to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks ago, unrelated to wikidata).
One solution would be to create a "hub" page for the law in general on
the
German wikipedia too.
-- daniel
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
One possible solution I could imagine is to interwiki-links right under the headlines. This would be quite similar as section references are handled in several Bibles as well.
Cheers, Marco
On 28/11/12 12:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Let us see, once Wikidata has replaced most of the local language links, what is left and how the world looks then. This would be then the appropriate moment to consider how to further extend the system. Right now we would be building on too many assumptions that we cannot validate for a rather small benefit.
Cheers, Denny
2012/11/28 Lukas Benedix <benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de mailto:benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge, but is that a problem? I think there are a lot of articles especially in the german wikipedia where you don't have FooBar but Foo#Bar. LB > On 27.11.2012 19:30, Marco Fleckinger wrote: >> While having 3 articles in German it is always the same article in >> English. >> AFAIK something like that is not possible to reflect in WikiData. > > Correct. > > In such a case, old style language links have to be used in the wikitext. > Note > however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage > link > to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks > ago, > unrelated to wikidata). > > One solution would be to create a "hub" page for the law in general on the > German wikipedia too. > > -- daniel > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Am 28.11.2012 14:43, schrieb Marco Fleckinger:
One possible solution I could imagine is to interwiki-links right under the headlines. This would be quite similar as section references are handled in several Bibles as well.
Cheers, Marco
On 28/11/12 12:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Let us see, once Wikidata has replaced most of the local language links, what is left and how the world looks then. This would be then the appropriate moment to consider how to further extend the system. Right now we would be building on too many assumptions that we cannot validate for a rather small benefit.
Cheers, Denny
2012/11/28 Lukas Benedix <benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de mailto:benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Is there any reason not to have links from wikidata/FooBar to en.wiki/FooBar and de.wiki/Foo#Bar? It would be a directed edge,but is that a problem?
I think there are a lot of articles especially in the germanwikipedia where you don't have FooBar but Foo#Bar.
Using fragment identifers to headings which can change any time is a bad idea. This currently causes big problem for interwikibots although they can handle this partly.
Some years ago we change interwiki bots and handle this problem by using static redirects instead (reusing the existing magic word __STATICREDIRECT__ for this).
Creating a redirect on each wiki for these cases shouldn't be a problem. So adding static redirect pages as sitelinks (without resolving to the redirect target) would solve this problem. If headings are changed only the redirect on the same wiki must be updated.
Merlissimo
2012/11/27 Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de
Note however that the English article can only have one outgoing interlanguage link to german, the others are ignored (this was changed in core a few weeks ago, unrelated to wikidata).
So that's why my user page was spoiled! I used more English iws to tricky
link to my user pages on Meta and Commons and they don't work any more. (en:m:xxx etc.)