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