Last modified: 2008-11-24 12:57:48 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 12763 - WMF interwiki map needs to be updated
WMF interwiki map needs to be updated
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
Interwiki links (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 5 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: shell
: 13806 15989 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-01-23 20:15 UTC by changeling
Modified: 2008-11-24 12:57 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description changeling 2008-01-23 20:15:59 UTC
On http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map it says that the interwiki table has not been updated since September 2007, however a number of updates have taken place to the Interwiki map page since then.  Could the database be updated to reflect the changes so the new links will be available across the Wikimedia projects?  Thanks.
Comment 1 BozMo 2008-02-27 12:39:22 UTC
Really there should be a regular process to do this say every few weeks
Comment 2 Snowolf 2008-04-17 03:18:22 UTC
VasilievVV has updated http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map to reflect an Interwiki last updated at February 10, 2008, but I believe that a scheduled process could be of help.
Comment 3 JeLuF 2008-04-21 13:02:02 UTC
*** Bug 13806 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 David Gerard 2008-04-21 13:09:42 UTC
So, er, what's the problem with running an interwiki update? So far all queries on the mailing list have been met with tumbleweeds.
Comment 5 Brion Vibber 2008-04-21 18:24:52 UTC
It's mildly annoying and IIRC we need to review the changes for security reasons. I'd really prefer to never update it again. :)
Comment 6 BozMo 2008-04-22 09:30:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's mildly annoying and IIRC we need to review the changes for security
> reasons. I'd really prefer to never update it again. :)

Then sorry for my part in the mildly annoying (if its the mailist not the process which annoys). 

I think less frequent (say three or six monthly) updates might be accepted easily if this is made clear on meta. A timetable would help more too, meta admins could review the proposals just ahead of the update. At present there is an expection gap between "every month or so" and when it actually happens. 

IYRC and there are security reasons for the review, could this be explained at meta so the admins there who update the list could do it? 

Comment 7 BozMo 2008-05-09 09:26:16 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's mildly annoying and IIRC we need to review the changes for security
> reasons. I'd really prefer to never update it again. :)
> 

I know you would prefer never but 10 Feb to 9 May is three months and the list of changes is long (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interwiki_map&diff=986791&oldid=875036) including OTRS, downloads etc. I know its a real drag but I would appreciate it if you could update fairly soon. It would help to tidy up. 
Comment 8 Daniel Friesen 2008-05-09 09:37:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> It's mildly annoying and IIRC we need to review the changes for security
> reasons. I'd really prefer to never update it again. :)
> 

What kind of security reasons?
Just remember it's now possible to make the interwiki map shared from a single location. Depending on what the issue is and how different the interwiki maps are, it may be possible to centralize the interwiki map, and use an extension like [[Special:Interwiki]] instead of an article to give better control over who is allowed to change the Interwiki map.
Comment 9 Laurence 'GreenReaper' Parry 2008-08-10 20:25:54 UTC
Not updating it isn't really a good solution, because part of the point of using interwiki URLs is that they are canonical.

In theory old URLs should redirect to the new ones, but in practice it doesn't always work that way (e.g. Wikia is closing their copy of WikiFur but won't redirect furry.wikia.com to the new site unless we put up adverts for their wikis, so WikiFur: links will break unless updated).

Perhaps the map could be updated just before/after the main MediaWiki revision is updated? That tends to be more-or-less on three month periods.
Comment 10 MZMcBride 2008-10-21 04:25:00 UTC
*** Bug 15989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 Laurence 'GreenReaper' Parry 2008-10-21 18:36:42 UTC
A thought: Perhaps the table for this could actually be a view into several different tables - local and global - the latter of which is held as a single copy and thus much easier to update? This information is cached anyway, so in theory it shouldn't be too expensive . . .

I don't know enough about SQL to implement this, although the little I've suggests it might be possible to query across multiple databases using stored procedures.

Developing a technique or in-code solution for this would be useful for everyone - we have nine languages in our wiki family, and are currently adding them at the rate of one every few weeks. I'd love to just have to update one table whenever we added something, rather than (n - 1).

Bonus points if queries can be done through the API so that our remote interwiki partners could use it as well (offering them access to our database is not a reasonable option).
Comment 12 Raimond Spekking 2008-11-18 20:58:11 UTC
Interwiki map was synced last week. Exact date unknown :-(
Comment 13 Mike.lifeguard 2008-11-24 06:25:41 UTC
Ideally this should run automatically as a cron job, no?
Comment 14 Casey Brown 2008-11-24 12:57:48 UTC
No, Brion has said he doesn't really trust it to run automatically.  That may have changed, but either way, that would be a different bug. :-)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links