Wiktionary talk:Transwiki log

Transwiki namespace

Why do these articles go in the transwiki namespace instead of the main article namespace? If we need to keep a list of all of these things in one convenient place, we should create a {{transwiki-stub}} template or whatnot and then slap it on all these articles. As the definitions were cleaned up, the template would be removed.
Oh well, following convention. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The main reasons are: many Transwikis do not meet our WT:CFI. None of the Transwikis meet even minimal requirements of WT:ELE (as the Wikipedia formatting requirements are not directly compatible.) More importantly, this Transwiki log is the only link that can be used to trace an entry's progression from WP article, to WP TW entry, to WT TW entry to WT entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

tearing the page up

I'd like to rip the page up a bit so that we use sub pages and then we can use transclusion if we want to show stuff on this page:

• Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here/staging - for articles not yet moved out of the Transwiki namespace.
• Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here - for articles that have been moved out of the Transwiki namespace.
• Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here/Archive2003 - archive of articles that have been moved out of the Transwiki namespace.
• Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here/Archive2004 (etc) - archive of articles that have been moved out of the Transwiki namespace.
• Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here - for articles that have been move out.

I'd be happy to do the work sorting it all out.

Any objections? Kevin Rector 02:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That'd certainly cut down on the huge (and growing) page length. I'm sure this page was fine and didn't inspire much thought just a little while ago before something like a thousand articles began to be transwikied, but now it needs dealing with. I'd suggest that the "moved into the main Wiktionary namspace" need not even be displayed on this page at all. They only exist as a record and never need to be touched again, so we could just have a link to them all. In fact, if this page could be some kind of a project page or something to encourage editors to do the formatting to definitions, that would help clear the backlog. I imagine right now it's intimidating to editors, and looks like a technical page only used by Transwiki-ers. Also, I wonder if any articles will ever be moved from Wiktionary... Okay, I am not sure if I have actually answered your question, but in other words, "yes", I think you have a good prposal here. If I were you, I would go ahead and do it whenever you want as I doubt whether anyone but us (and maybe Uncle G) watch this page or will care. Thanks --McBot 03:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (It's Dmcdevit, talking with the bot account).

• First of all, I am in favor of any efforts to make that particular page more navigable, as someone who first looked at it about 24 hours ago it _is_ intimidating to approach and somewhat more difficult to try and jump into than, say, Wanted Articles. I am most enamored by the idea of getting the stuff that has already been reviewed (to whatever end) off of the page, to wherever really. About articles being moved, there is some potential for it, especially with bibliographic entries, I think that seems so unlikely at the moment because of how big of a lead Wikipedia has on us, but we are all working hard to rectify that ;). - TheDaveRoss 06:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As the person who refactored w:Wikipedia:Transwiki log so that the individual destination projects were in sub-sections [1] it would be hypocritical of me not to support a refactoring here. ☺ (See w:Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log, moreover.) Wiktionarians who are not heavily involved in the transwikification, like TheDaveRoss, may be better sources than I for how this page should look for ease of use by Wiktionarians wanting to pick out the transwikified articles, Wiktionarify them, and move them to the main article space. I certainly concur that it would be a benefit for "Articles moved from" and "Articles moved to" to be split up. As for further separating out "Articles moved from" into "needing dealing with" and "dealt with", I think that more Wiktionarians, such as SemperBlotto need to comment. We could go with two separate sub-pages, requiring that one make two edits to two log sub-pages when finally dealing with a transferred-in article, or we could go with a tagging system and a category to scan and no separation of "Articles moved from" in twain, requiring that a tag be affixed by the transwikifier and removed when the article is dealt with. Uncle G 13:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's done

The response for the people who use the page most seemed to be pretty positive, so I went ahead and did it. You'll notice that the page looks basically exactly the same. The only difference is that you'll need to edit sections instead of hitting the big edit button on the top of the page. I think this will make it much easier to manage. Any other suggestions are welcome (like do we even want to see the list of pages that are finished, or do we want a link).

Also, I like the idea of throwing this whole scheme in the garbage and using a template on the Transwiki pages that has a category and would be removed when the article is moved to the main article space that Uncle G proposed, what do the rest of you think? Kevin Rector 02:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever's done I'll just say again that it's less intimidating with the already done ones gone and more instruction at the top (for creating the Wiktionary articles, not just tranwikiing). I do like how it has red links now, that encourages fixing I hope. --McBot 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (again, Dmcdevit)
  • Good thoughts, I'll just link to the already done one. As far as rewriting the instructions does anyone want to have a go at it? Kevin Rector 03:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping a more Wiktionary-minded could do it... Also, is there a quick way to alphepetize when I'm putting in newly Transwikied things? Maybe I'm just slow, but how do you do it? --McBot 03:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I just did it by hand because the last batch only had like 10. When I did the lot of them I wrote a quick computer program to do it. When/If this page stabilizes and I get around to doing the next version of the bot, I try to have it auto add it in the right place (no promises though). Kevin Rector 03:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh. Well, for now I'm going to put it in unsorted. But you needn't feel obligated to doing the sorting yourself, I'll get around to it when there's more. Thx. --McBot 04:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• OK Kevin. that seems better. The process is still rather clunky though. My mind is moving in the direction of throwing the system away, and just moving unformatted articles to the main pagespace, where we can wikify them. That happens everyday with articles from new or one-time users. The reason that there is nothing in the "moved from here" section is that we (or, at least, I) just copy/paste any encyclopedic articles into -pedia, give them some basic -pedia formatting and delete them from here. It doesn't happen often - I think that I have done four or five. Most encyclopedic items are on -pedia already in some form. Cheers. SemperBlotto 07:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki is ephemeral

The original vision of transwiki was that these pages would be ephemeral. They would go into a pseudonamespace because they would be deleted eventually. Doing things this way was based on the presumption that we may already have an article on the word, and that this had a potential for conflict. Once a Wiktionarian has "Wiktionarified" a page, I don't even see a need for maintaining a log of those pages. Eclecticology 22:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• My impression was that the articles themselves should not be removed from the log, if anything, to show they've been dealt with, but remain here to detail its evolution, and give credit to the original authors over at Wikipedia for copyright purposes. Why not just strikethrough, as we've begun doing at the WP's transwiki log, so that it is obvious when it's dealt with, but not gone from the record. And I suppose deleting the articles from the transwiki namespace is not that big of a deal as long as the record remains here. Does this make sense? --McBot 08:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not make sense to me, since a strike through takes extra work. Why not move line items to the "archive" lists whenever they're moved in. That's just a cut and paste job.Goldenrowley 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and periodic resorting

This page is too big to be useful. With Special:Randompage/Transwiki: and Special:Index/Transwiki: this really doesn't serve any purpose now. Any objections to making my bot not report these here, and moving this to WT:RFDO? The alternative is someone periodically sorting this, and striking out completed items, and annually archiving the page. --Connel MacKenzie 06:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean [2]. I don't think there's any use to updating the page, but I actually do like it for looking at the oldest entries first, sometimes, which neither the alphabetical or random pages do. Since it's not doing any harm other than a bit of clutter... I would hope with the page static it might actually be finished eventually, but I doubt even that at this point. What we really need are more people combing these, especially non-English entries, which are mostly good and need little verification work but severely unformatted or in the wrong script. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved 2005/2006 to a separate page and made archives for years though 2007, because its simply to unweildy and slow to use. Once I finish archiving the ones that look finished in thepast 2 years, it should also be much faster running. Goldenrowley 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In the works

I have been working of an Exel spreadsheet of about 800 Transwiki's that I've moved or seen moved by others) in this year. It will take me a little more time to log the final words besides the original entries for all 800. However just wanted to explain why I moved so many to archives this week. Also please note the counts of Transwiki's in each category can be updated periodically on the new template sidebar located at: Template:Transwiki TOC. Goldenrowley 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing Logs

Note there seems to be quite a lot of imports in year 2005-2006 that were never logged [in] so we'll just have to recreate and retroactivly log in older imported words as they turn up.tip, The import date and time is in the history of each page. Goldenrowley 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Autobot turned off

Note the Transwik Autobot was malfunctioning so turned off mid-May. I notice the Autobot recorded but never really Transwiki'ed about 5 percent of the words it attempted so we have some failures in the list. For example:

1. w:Epitome → Transwiki:Epitome --Connel MacKenzieBot 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the red link it was never transferred over, was lost in transit. Goldenrowley 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive structure

As the volume of imports this year is lower than expected, perhaps due to the autobot being turned off, it would be much more compact to restructure the archives to have a page per 6 months, rather than once per month. That is to copy the way it was archived in year 2007. I will proceed with this, seeing how the summer contributions have been light. Goldenrowley 16:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kagome lattice

Request that some kind soul move the etymology cruft that is in w:Kagome lattice to Wiktionary, and remove it from the article, where it is mostly a distraction. 70.247.173.254 00:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)