User talk:Interwicket

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Archive: /2008

[edit] French apostrophe

Hello. This bot has just changed the interwiki link in z'. Originally, the link to the French version was fr:z’, but it is now fr:z'. Please check the apostrophes carefully. This change is meaningless because in French the correct apostrophe is the former, and articles with the latter are all redirects. — TAKASUGI Shinji 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is working correctly; iwiki links are always to exactly the same form. Note that it links to the redirect(s), so follow the link and you will arrive just where expected. Robert Ullmann 12:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please ignore the difference between ' and ’ in French interwikis? I don't know whether this bot is working also on French Wikipedia, but please don't change interwikis there. Now fr:z’ links to en:z', but you shouldn't change it to en:z’. — TAKASUGI Shinji 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

firstly, this is not "wikipedia". Secondly, wikt iwikis from en.wikt link to the exact form, including redirects as I noted, so they work correctly. What the fr.wikt wants as policy will be addressed and followed of course, but at present Interwicket will only add a link to an fr.wikt entry that is not a redirect to an en.wikt entry that is not a redirect. The fr redirects are working properly and linked to properly from en, there is no issue here. Robert Ullmann 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Running in simple.wikt

Can you clarify whether the bot will add links to en.wikt as entries are created on simple.wikt, or the other way round, or both? If it's from en to simple, then it will almost certainly have no work to do.--Brett 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both. But as you note, it finds little to do. Presumably you are always including the en link when creating a simple entry, and adding the simple link to the en page? Does make sense ;-). Robert Ullmann 10:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] es:wikt

Hi. You can make a request for bot's flag in es:Wikcionario:Café. Bye. Lin linao 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, done, Robert Ullmann 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] no.wikt

You have now been granted a bot flag at no.wikt. Thanks! --Eivind (t) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] links in edit summaries

Would it be possible to make the edit summaries link to the pages Interwicket has linked to. That way, it'd be easier to go to see what is written about the word on other Wiktionaries about the word and compare it to our own article. V85 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could always go through the entry and the iwiki links, as that is what they are there for. The edit summary often includes quite a few language codes (30-40) so it can't always do this. But it might link the first few. I'll try that. Robert Ullmann 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I usually see Interwicket's actions from the watchlist, it would be easier to just go directly from there, as it makes it easier going back and forth. I like the solution you've come up with. (For now, I am mainly working with French, Thai and Lao, and there is rarely more than a couple of interwikis being added each time.) V85 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pt.wikt

Hi Robert!

On your pt.wikt talk page you wrote:

User "Interwicket" is the 'bot that adds interwiki (inter-language)
links to entries in the English Wiktionary. It is designed for the
Wiktionaries. It is not the "wikipedia bot", it is much more efficient.

Please add a request for bot status on the bot approval page. A simple request stating the basic facts about your bot is ok. Ah, and you can write it in English, it's no problem... :-)

After a few days (usually three or four), if no one objects, I'll give you bot status and you can operate in full mode.

--ValJor 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done that. Robert Ullmann 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now given you bot status on the pt.wikt

--ValJor 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ko wiktionary

Bot request page on ko is here. After one week, request for a bot flag (meta:Steward requests/Bot status) should be followed. Regards --아흔(A-heun) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No bureaucrat on ko? Okay, thanks for the pointer. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] some interwiki added by VolkovBot

(helpful bit, but please keep any significant discussion here)

de:Benutzer Diskussion:Interwicket et:Kasutaja arutelu:Interwicket fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Interwicket ka:მომხმარებლის განხილვა:Interwicket lt:Naudotojo aptarimas:Interwicket li:Euverlèk gebroeker:Interwicket ms:Perbincangan Pengguna:Interwicket nl:Overleg gebruiker:Interwicket ja:利用者‐会話:Interwicket oc:Discussion Utilizaire:Interwicket pt:Usuário Discussão:Interwicket uk:Обговорення користувача:Interwicket zh:User talk:Interwicket

[edit] cs wikt

Hello, if you want a flag for your bot on cs.wiktionary, please make a note on page cs:Wikislovník:Žádost o status bota. Best regards. --Reaperman 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Finding the request pages on all the wikts is a challenge. Some of them have a redirect in the project namespace from "Bot policy" to the local page, so that looking up "Project:Bot policy" will take you there, but most don't. Cheers, Robert Ullmann 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] da-wikt

You can request bot-flag on the Danish wiktionary on da:Wiktionary:Administratorer#Robotter. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Robert Ullmann 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Robert Ullmann. Could you please change it so that it sort the links the same way as on en.wiktionary.org meaning that fi (Suomi) should come after sl (Slovenščina)? Thanks! Kinamand 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That change has to go in the "framework" code, specifically in wiktionary_family.py. (Yes, a really lousy design, not my fault!) Getting it to happen can take a while. I can easily do it in my code, but then other bots will continue sorting the other way. (It doesn't quite cause an edit war, as neither will edit specifically to sort, Interwicket only does that on its "home" wikt, so the codes will just get re-arranged when some iwiki is added or removed.) See meta:Interwiki sorting order. (And note it is all about the 'pedias ...) At the very end there is a link to add a request at SourceForge. Robert Ullmann 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and interesting link to wikimedia. Then I will suggest that you change your code so that it sorts based on local name of language. I can just block other bots if they sort wrong so no problem there. Kinamand 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd much rather cooperate with other bots; it is good to have more than one (e.g. VolkovBot runs on the en.wikt, is the only one that bothers to use the option -noredirect that keeps it from removing links to redirects) we can request it get added to the framework code and I can update mine in parallel; but I'm not very happy with doing something that isn't going to make it into the framework presently. Is there a discussion of the sort order on da.wikt somewhere? Robert Ullmann 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Added request to SF here but they will take forever. Has this been discussed? Robert Ullmann 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ru-wiki

Could you please create a separate user for your bot (Say, InterwicketBot) as opposed to the user of the human owner? Use {{bot|owners_name}} there and we'll arrange the bot flag. Thanks! -- Wesha 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Interwicket" is the 'bot. The human is "Robert Ullmann" ... Robert Ullmann 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bot status on el.wikt

Hi! You have been given bot status at the greek wiktionary. Have a nice time among us! - Regards, Lou 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I noticed that (and the 'bot noticed ;-). Very good. Robert Ullmann 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bot flag on ja.wikt

This bot does not have a bot flag on ja.wikt. You can request for it at ja:Wiktionary:ボット/使用申請. Thank you. --Ninomy-Talk 06:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done that. The request pages on the various wikts can be very hard to find, pointers are very useful! Robert Ullmann 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ;-) And now, this bot has got a bot flag. --Ninomy-Talk 12:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki on ms:

Wrt this edit, do you think you can follow the same sorting code as in Wikipedia? We sort by first word of local language. ...Aurora... 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Annoyingly, this is not in the framework code (lots of things aren't ...) Robert Ullmann 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Added request to SF here but they take forever; will do it for my code in the meantime. Robert Ullmann 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I thought when we applied to change the interwiki order before, it applies to all projects, not just Wikipedia. As for now, VolkovBot is the only active bot in ms.wikt. ...Aurora... 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see how that request was interpreted as applying only to the pedia; "mswiki" is the wikipedia, while the wiktionary is "mswiktionary" or ms.wikt (etc.) You might want to add a comment to my request if you want it to apply to all projects now.

Where is the bot flag application page on ms.wikt? Cheers, Robert Ullmann 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that now. Oh well, the only other ms project is Wikibooks, which is really small. It can wait.

There's no bot page yet, no one has asked for it before. I'll create one in the next few days, it'll be at ms:Wiktionary:Bot. ...Aurora... 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Added the request, cheers, Robert Ullmann 12:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bot request on the Swahili Wiktionary

Hello, Interwicket. I saw large number of your edit, pity you didn't add your bot on apropriate place where all the bots are needed to add their request! Your're advising to add your request at here - in order to get bot flag insistantly. Cheers!--Wikipedian Activist (talK 2 mE) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi (;-). As you can see, I've been busy with this for a while. The business of keeping the iwikis reasonably up to date across all 171 wiktionaries in compliance with local policies had been neglected ... Robert Ullmann 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ca.wikt

Hi, your bot is great! Please, make a request for bot flag at ca:Viccionari:Bots. --Vriullop 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added the request. (And noted that Catalan is surprisingly easy to understand, with some context ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(It's pure Latin evolved ;-)) Now you have the bot flag. --Vriullop 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] oc.wikt

Hi, thanks for for the great work of your bot at the occitan wikitionary, sorry for the delay of the answer.We have now given the bot flag to Interwicket. Regards.Jiròni 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, very good! thank you. There are lots of iwikis needed that it will work on. Robert Ullmann 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Status code

Now I noticed your bot updates its status on each of the wikis its on. I was wondering if you have that code posted anywhere as that is a pretty usefull piece of code. Or is it mixed in with the rest of the interwicket code? I didn't notice it in there. -Djsasso 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Look at the beginning of User:Interwicket/code/reciprocal, the FLwikt class, FLdict class, and flws instance, then the code in getflstatus() immediately following. It reads the status from the API, and then reads a couple of other things in a very hacked up way (:-). The table is written by updstatus(), further down the file. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See User:Interwicket/code/botstatus which is directly usable code, will run by itself. Robert Ullmann 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] tk.wikt

Hello! I want to have tk.wikt to be flagged. Kind regards!--Hanberke 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ml.wikt

You have been granted bot flag in ml.wikt. --Jacob.jose 05:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] linking empty pages

from my talk page

Hello Robert Ullmann, I just noticed that Interwicket keeps adding links to empty pages (which had been removed before), see [1], please could You fix this, users that are sent to pages that are completely empty (only containing some interwikilinks) must feel like they have been fooled or something, so I prefer not doing such things. Best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I am looking at this. Is easy enough to skip it when it is looked at (of course). The complication is not picking it up over and over again as missing links either for that page or the ones that would link to it. And then at some point when content is added, picking it up and adding the links. (The case where it gets deleted at some point is easy and already handled.)

How frequent is this case? Are there lots of blank pages out there? (The example given is a mistake, the bot couldn't delete the page; should have tagged it or replaced it properly.) Shouldn't "blank" pages always be deleted?

There is an interesting comparison with the pl.wikt's policy not to link to blank templates in the ru.wikt. In that case the page looks very much non-blank, as it has a number of template calls, but still has no content. A better method for recognizing content-free pages would be good, but it is also an interestingly complex problem. Robert Ullmann 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, this is interesting, that is probably a software change in the pywikipedia bot, I first thought it always did that, but it seems this is new. However I don't mind the empty template pages in ru.wikt, people can add things there if they go there, but completely blank pages in Wiktionary are a problem since every Wiktionary has a bit different layout and uses templates a bypassing visitor can't possibly know. It looks that probably some page imports went wrong in sw.wikt, see the history of sw:vatn (be careful not to restore the first version, it is not a German but Icelandic word), sw:Afrikaans, etc.) I don't know how frequent that is :S

Best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a s/w change in pywikipedia to do this (since 5 September 2006). The code was reformatted a little bit. The 'bot action at sw:vatn was "correct", but as I noted, it can't delete the page. (And my sysop rights there keep evaporating, so it is really difficult to manage.) I'm noodling over how to figure out how frequent blank pages are in general; the overall revision info in the indexes in the API isn't very helpful.) Robert Ullmann 11:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this has been "fixed" (or at least made to work enough like interwiki.py that we shouldn't see bot wars ;-). I don't know what the "correct" answer is; blank pages are probably better deleted.

If you note any questionable edits after this time, please bring them to my attention. Robert Ullmann 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] id.wikt

Hi, thank you for your work at id.wiktionary. Could you please write your bot request at id:Wiktionary:Bot. I will activate it ASAP. Thanks! --IvanLanin 06:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted. Thanks. --IvanLanin 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links at the Irish Wiktionary

Hi, I've just noticed that Interwicket has been removing some links which it shouldn't. There are different opinions about how to show that most country names in Irish take the article - basically either including the article in the page title or not. This results in pages with different titles referring to the same word, e.g. the case I just noticed "Germany" is either Gearmáin or an Ghearmáin (or maybe An Ghearmáin). Personally I think the sensible approach is to just use the word without the article for the page title and then include the article in the headword or in a usage note. However, at the moment this article is called An Ghearmáin (some zealous soul renamed it) on the Irish wikt and Gearmáin on the English one.

I don't see any easy way for you to recognize these cases, but maybe Interwicket could be a bit less enthusiastic about removing interwiki links. Thanks. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (Talk @ Irish Wiktionary)

That is just the point: there is no way to recognize those cases (and dozens of other "special" cases); the bots (all of them, not just Interwicket, which is following the established rules ;-) remove any links that aren't to the same exact spelling. See meta:Interwiki.py/Wiktionary functionality discussion. There are many, many cases that can only be handled with redirects (and not just for iwiki, think of the users trying to look the words up, eh?) Robert Ullmann 12:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we need quite a few redirects then. Can I ask where were these rules established?

Cheers, ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] replacing instead of adding

Why is Interwicket replacing links instead of adding? On French Wiktionnaire, it replaced the Serbo-Croatian interwiki with Turkish (and here with Korean) instead of just adding the new interwiki link. Please fix this. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "replacing"; there just happen to be different things going on. There are various set of codes; the existing active wikts, the ones known to the framework, closed (but existing wikts), invalid codes ("sh", deleted by ISO), etc. This results in at least 4, and I think 5 mostly-the-same but not quite code sets Interwicket is dealing with. I've just been thinking about getting the stops (codes not used) in better shape, (by just, I mean last night, when I should have been sleeping ;-). The most troublesome set are these bad codes (also including se, tlh) recognized by the MW configuration. Robert Ullmann 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it (like the other bots) is using the Wikipedia "framework" calls to update links. A program calls getLanguageLinks to get the set and replaceLanguageLinks to remove them and replace with a new set. You'd think that the set removed and replaced would be the same set as "get" returns? You'd be wrong. (The "framework" code is crap, and I periodically have problems and replace parts of it. Ought to get rid of it all, but other bits are useful ...) Note that the edit summary in both cases does not say "-sh"; Interwicket isn't trying to remove the iwiki. Robert Ullmann 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It did it again (removing link to existing sh article)... I would wish Interwicket would add links to those language editions of Wiktionary, where I have no account and it is not wothy creating one, but it would be really an improvement, if at least those links, which I add manually, were not removed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I had added intentionally only the sh interwiki on [2] after creating an article in Wiktionnaire to see what happens. Interwicket again removed the sh link while adding the fr. This means that whenever an article appears on one Wiktionary and if there we have already sh, Interwicket will remove the extant sh link while adding the new. Eventually, this would lead to the removal of all sh links, unless sh is placed on an æqual par with other codes and Interwicket begins to recognise it. Can this be fixed? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is working correctly. Code sh is an invalid (deleted by SIL/ISO) code, and should not be linked. The "sh" wiktionary will be closed in due course when someone gets around to running the process. Don't waste your time. I have read your "credo" re "Serbo-Croation"; please do understand that you are at odds with reality, international standards, and policy. It is pointless to try to push it. Interwicket isn't hunting down and deleting sh links (although it should be), but it does remove invalid links when it is replacing (also tlh, tokipona, se and a few other bogosities). Robert Ullmann 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So you refuse to fix the problem and adopt the code. Wellaway. My convictions are in accordance with the neutral, non-politicised linguistic status quo. I have learnt this language, I can read and write in it and I can communicate freely with people from both Serbia and Croatia with æqual ability. I do not controvert your right to disagree and to have your own opinion regardless of your knowledge of South Slavic languages, but I never thought that a bot could also be endowed with it. The projects which should be closed are not those of the largest living South Slavic languages, but of artificial, useless constructions such as Volapük, Ido or Esperanto deprived of the slightest vestige of literature or culture... Any prominent writer in them? None. Prominent writers of Serbo-Croatian? Innumerable, including Ivo Andrić, Nobel prise winner, who signed the declaration of the adoption of the language as a state language. And yet Interwicket operates with such misconceptions as eo, id or ... I never bothered to remark the code of the third one. But that is another matter. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] bg.wiktionary.org

Annoyingly enough, the Bulgarian Wiktionary has created a bot to create a load of redirections which is taking up nearly all of Interwicket's time. A lot of them 'seem' to be conjugated/declined forms that redirect to the main article, some of them redirect to red links. I'm aware you can't do anything about this, but I thought I'd tell you anyway. I can't read Cyrillic script, but I know what a redirect looks like! Mglovesfun 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They did that a while ago; the bot created a lot of "base forms", and lots and lots of redirections from inflected forms. Lmaltier added proper (albeit very simple) form entries to the fr.wikt, also a while ago, and Interwicket has now been linking them. Which is useful, someone looking up an inflected Bulgarian form in the fr.wikt will find a link that will take them to bg.wikt and to the base form (if it exists ...). There were 100K+ of these to do; Interwicket has now finished with them, so it isn't an issue for Interwicket. What bg.wikt wants to do with the broken redirects is SEP. (;-) Robert Ullmann 09:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some stats from the bg.wikt (run yesterday, as of some recent XML dump):

819753 entries in namespace 0, of which 793458 are redirects (!)
there are 37096 missing redirect targets, pointed to by 515447 broken redirects

So a very large part of the titles are redirects, and well over half of those are broken. I did look at the redirects linked to from the fr.wikt, and most seemed okay (but not all), so I suspect that Lmaltier's bot creation of forms correspond better to the existing entriess. But I don't know; I'll have to grab a copy of the fr.wikt and teach my program to check all those versus the set(s) of existing and missing targets. Haven't done that yet ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Robert, you may wish to see Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-06/User:AHbot for bot status.—msh210℠ 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew and equivalent characters

Various languages have various characters which can be represented by more than one Unicode value.

Each Wiktionary may have their own preference on which are the "correct" variants to use for page titles each language.

On the English Wiktionary we always use the ASCII apostrophe ' for apostrophes but not for the Hebrew geresh ׳ and the Hawaiian okina ʻ

For the Hawaiian okina other workaround characters are sometimes seen such as the opening single quote ‘ or the backtick `

Some other Wiktionaries do use the ASCII apostrophe for at least the Hebrew geresh.

Another Hebrew character, the maqaf ־ is often represented with an ASCII hyphen, another is the gershayim ״ is often represented with ASCII double quote "

There are probably other such subsitute characters used by various languages.

Here are some Hebrew pages I recently moved to the correct geresh or gershayim spelling where Interwicket has removed the interlanguage link because the other wikis use ASCII equivalents: [3] , [4] , [5]

It would obviously be an improvement if Interwicket could cope with these policy differences between what are essentially the same page names on different Wiktionaries.

As an added complication some Wiktionaries may have redirects from one form to another form. We definitely do this on the English Wiktionary. An improved Interwicket would need to avoid linking to such redirects.

— hippietrail 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, the solution I have been recommending is sort of the exact opposite: always linking to redirects so the various wikts can do whatever. There are many more issues. See m:Interwiki.py/Wiktionary functionality discussion. We want to link in the general case to form redirects, as they arrive in the correct place according to the other wikt. A form on an FL wikt that we have as a redirect should link to it, so as to arrive at our entry.

It can't be done in the general case by considering some page names to be the same, because some wikts will distinguish between the page names, while others do not. Whatever we do must also be rigorous so the bot can do it; once we add in even a few manual fixes, the entire iwiki problem disintegrates into a manual or near manual task. (Interwicket does many thousands of edits a day w/o help, you don't want to be doing even a tiny fraction of those manually!) Robert Ullmann 10:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AutoFormat interaction

It is not all that uncommon when I add an entry for a derived form that, thanks to templates providing the link to the base form, has no [[links]] present in it, that the following happens:

AutoFormat comes across the entry and adds {{count page}}.
Interwicket comes to the entry and adds one or more interwiki links.
Sometime later, usually much later tho the delay is not a problem, AutoFormat revisits the entry and removes {{count page}}.

That third edit seems redundant, since Interwicket in theory could detect {{count page}} and remove it when it adds an interwiki link. Only problem I perceive as likely is if Interwicket currently has no mechanism to do things differently on different wikis (as opposed to simply doing nothing). In any case, this is definitely a minor performance enhancement tweak rather than anything that adds function, so it likely be worth only minimal effort to accomplish. — Carolina wren discussió 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just about the same thing; watching Interwicket adding the links to the French forms Dawnraybot is creating, that have "count page" when needed included in them. IW will add a link, and sooner or later AF will remove the now redundant "count page". It is good to have the functions separate, not tangled together, but this isn't complicated. IW certainly does have the ability to do things differently on different wikts, there are a number of rules that work that way.

It is a minimal amount of work, even if just as a special case for en.wikt. Is very reasonable to have IW remove it just as a human might. Will do. Robert Ullmann 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, and works correctly. Thank you. Robert Ullmann 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to remove wrong links persistently

I have removed wrong interwiki-links from the german entry PPP (here: http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/PPP) the bot has set. I now would like to know whether the bot will set them again during his next run and how to prevent this. Sorry, if the topic has already been discussed here, I didn't read the whole discussion. Jonathan Scholbach 19:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They look like they were perfectly valid interwiki-links to me. If your complaint is that de:PPP has only an entry for the Deutsch use of PPP as an abbreviation while the others have other uses, then add those other uses. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary interwikis are spelling-to-spelling not meaning-to-meaning. en:PPP and de:PPP should be linked unless the German Wiktionary has chosen to operate differently than the other Wiktionaries on this topic. — Carolina wren discussió 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly correct. And all the wikts, including de.wikt, work the same way in this respect for the main namespace. Robert Ullmann 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. My complaint was that I am unable to add those other uses because they (mostly) do not exist in german. For instance People's Power Party would have another abbreviation than PPP in german and so the other english meanings of PPP as well. But as I can see, it was not the link but my understanding of the interwiki-links which has been wrong. Thank you for the information, Jonathan Scholbach 08:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interwicket problem?

Hello,

The Interwicket bot seems to constantly de-link these French and Greek interwiki links from the corresponding Chinese page. As far as I can tell, the links are correct and should not be removed by Interwicket. Why is it doing it? GiuseppeMassimo 13:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That page, and several others added by "Shibo77" in 2005, appear to have a trailing whitespace character that is causing trouble. It didn't used to, but about a month ago it started to be significant. Will chase it (tomorrow/today, is 3 AM ;-). Don't worry about it for the moment ;-) Robert Ullmann 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know yet whether this is in the DB (somewhere, possibly not in zh.wikt) or some code bug somewhere. The code (on my side) hasn't changed/didn't change at the time this started happening. Have not found it yet. Robert Ullmann 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are stray no-break spaces, treated as valid title characters by the pybot framework, but silently converted to space/underscore by the server s/w:

$dbkey = preg_replace( '/\xE2\x80[\x8E\x8F\xAA-\xAE]/S', '', $dbkey );
$dbkey = preg_replace( '/[ _\xA0\x{1680}\x{180E}\x{2000}-\x{200A}\x{2028}\x{2029}\x{202F}\x{205F}\x{3000}]+/u', '_', $dbkey );

(for my reference, this is the current version, first is BIDI strip, second is WS) "they" did change this recently. Will fix presently. Robert Ullmann 13:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

should be fixed now Robert Ullmann 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! GiuseppeMassimo 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] count page

Umm... Is this bot supposed to remove the {{count page}} from entries? It seems to be removing quite a lot of them. [6]--Yair rand 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See == AutoFormat interaction == above, where I suggested that this bot do that. {{count page}} is a hack that causes entries without any wikilinks to count as entries for our totals. Since interwiki links are sufficient to trigger the count mechanism, then if an interwiki link is added, {{count page}} isn't needed and the AutoFormat bot would remove the template anyway the next time it checks the entry. Having Interwicket do it lets one bot edit do what would otherwise take two bot edits. — Carolina wren discussió 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] articles added by bot

Hi! What's the rule for dealing with human vs. bot added new pages? At the pl.wikt we are currently making some imports with bots and at the same time we create some entries by hand. Interwikis for by-hand-articles are usually added no longer than two hours after creation of the page. Interwikis for by-bot-articles were last added 26 Oct 2009 and then stopped. Set of people is verifying those imports article by article however verification is difficoult without interwikis. We assume that entries without interwikis should have added references and we use dedicated tool for this task. Without interwikis added this tool became useless :( Regards, 195.205.156.30 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It picks up "human" changes from looking at recent changes, waiting an hour, and putting them on or near the front of its internal queue. (The hour wait is do allow for multiple edits by the creating editor without edit conflicts, and deletion of junk.) Other entries created (e.g. by bots) are picked up on the less frequent index scans, about once a week, and added at/near the end of the internal queue. The presumption has been that these are lower priority. Bot additions sometimes cause the queue length to grow to several days of tasks, this combination keeps the RC/human changes in front, with the typical 2-hour response that you see. So pt.wikt was scanned 26 Oct (as you note), see User:Interwicket/FL status, and will be done again in a day or so.

Interesting tool, I didn't know it existed. I wonder what can be done better here. (Is interesting, when I started doing this it hadn't been done for months in most cases, and there were hundreds of thousands of missing links. Now people expect them within 2 hours ;-) Cheers, Robert Ullmann 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not "expecting" or "demanding" :) since its your freedom what you are doing as volounteer. I was only worried, that some bot on some wiktionary caused you to stop/limit updating bot-creations (like some broken bot doing broken edits). It fine to know it's about once a week. BTW1: it was about pl.wikt, not pt.wikt, and BTW2, I was the one who asked you somewhere in this discussion page long time ago to introduce delay to interwicked work. Thanks for your great work. 195.205.156.30 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(hence "expect" with ";-)" ;-) thank you. Robert Ullmann 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)