Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Interwiki synchronization

Shortcut:
IS

This page is intended to host discussions between representatives from individual wikis regarding interlanguage links between Wikipedia articles.

Interlanguage links can often become entangled in conflicts. For example, if the page en:Emergency medical technician links to fr:Ambulancier, but fr:Ambulancier links to en:Paramedic, then that would be a conflict. This confuses the readers of Wikipedia and usually cannot be automatically maintained by interwiki bots (such as Interwiki.py). This inability to maintain links automatically frequently leads to lack of updates, stale links etc.

The task of synchronizing these links manually is hard, but challenging and interesting. A central hub for discussing this will foster further cooperation and concord between different language Wikipedias.

Encyclopedic truth is universal, so parallel ontology between Wikipedias in different languages is usually desirable, but it is important to emphasize that no Wikipedia can force its ontology on other Wikipedias, and any significant changes of this kind must be decided by consensus.

Future directions

edit

In the future the technology of interlanguage links may significantly change thanks to the Interlanguage Extension; see A newer look at the interlanguage link. When this happens, the discussions about interwiki synchronization may move to the wiki that will be set up for this extension.

Automated analysis

edit
Note
This database appears very outdated. It's questionable if it has ever been updated since its creation in 2008. Have mörser, will travel 18:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The largest connected component in the graph of interlanguage links between articles contains well over 70'000 nodes (including over 3'000 from the English edition) and over 3'000'000 links. There are 24 more connected components with over 1'000 nodes. In total, there are about 60'000 inconsistent connected components in the graph. These figures are based on an analysis of snapshots from late August 2008.

It is next to impossible for a human to untangle the largest graphs anymore. Also, it is infeasible to process all 60'000 or so components, even if most of them are quite small. For that reason, an automatic meaning detection approach, even very imperfect, might be quite useful. An example of such automated analysis can be found here (a middle-sized component with approx. 300 articles and about 25 meanings), here are some more. The results show the identified meanings, the key nodes and links leading to semantic drift, and a complete set of links to remove to guarantee consistency. A description of the graph of meanings in the DOT language used by Graphviz is also provided. A batch edition based on the above results is possible.

Personally, I am strongly in favor of such an automated correction. Note that this would be a one-time action, which apparently has never been taken before. The 70'000+ component must have been growing for years: it contained about 48'000 articles in March 2008.

I'll gladly answer any questions regarding the idea, and upload more examples of analyzed components. If the suggested course of actions is approved by the community, I'd be glad to provide generated edit recommendations for all inconsistent components in a suitable format. I don't have the bot permissions nor the necessary experience, so I'm looking forward to a cooperation with a bot owner. I've performed the analysis for the graph of category interlanguage links too, and it requires similar action too.

This is an application of methods which I have developed during my PhD research, I'm currently in the process of writing two articles documenting the topology of the graph and the methods used to identify meanings. In short, the approach used here arranges the nodes in space using the force-based graph layout algorithm with a custom potential. Then, during the reconstruction of meanings, shorter links are considered to be more trustworthy.

Thanks, Bolo1729 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've opened this service which presents all of the conflicts in which two or more English articles are involved (a little bit over 30'000 cases). In each case, edit recommendations are also presented. --Bolo1729 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a new case

edit
  • After creating the case page, add its name to the top of the list in the "Current discussions section".

Current discussions

edit

Lonesome George & Chelonoidis abingdonii

edit

Status:   In progress…

Describe the case here: Lonesome George was the only turtle from subspieces Chelonoidis abingdonii. so some wikipedias wrote article for the spiecs some form lonesome george and some have one article for both.

Group 1: Lonesome George

edit

Group 2: Chelonoidis abingdonii

edit

Problematic cases

edit

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Nymph

edit

Status:   In progress…

Words like the English "Nymph" and French "Nymphe" originating from the same historic roots have developed significantly different meanings in the various languages. So far I have identified three different conotations, but there may well be more variants:

  • "English" ALL juvenile stages between egg and imago in HEMImetabolous insects
  • "Italian" Intermediate stage (last stage only) between "larva" and imago in HEMImetabolous insects. Equivalent of last "nymph" stage ONLY in "English" version)
  • "French" : Intermediate stage (1) between larva and imago in some HOLOmetabolous insects

I have removed all interwikis from all linked language versions and added messages to the various talk pages to ask the editors for informed decisions where their article should link to.

On the English Talk Page I'm keeping track of this.

ATTENTION BELOW LIST IS NOT UPDATED AS FREQUENTLY (by me) AS THE ENGLISH TALK PAGE

Group 1 "English" style conotation

edit

Group 2 "Italian" style conotation

edit

Group 3 "French" style conotation

edit

Problematic cases

edit

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Dutch Brazil

edit

Status:   In progress…

Describe the case here: what is the starting point of the problem, what causes the conflict, write a general proposal for fixing.

If it is possible, try to find out which are the groups of articles that should be fixed and list them here by language. Try giving every group a meaningful name.

Nova Holanda

edit

Invasões holandesas no Brasil

edit

Problematic cases

edit

(Articles that you can´t sort on your own)

Discussion

edit

I think the division is quite clear. Only .no and .pt have two seperate articles, but there might be others that I haven't picked up. --Wikijens (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Malta

edit

It seems that there are several organizations that are called Knights of Malta, Order of Malta, etc.

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

edit

Venerable Order of Saint John

edit

Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg)

edit

Knights Hospitaller

edit

(these articles seem to be concerned about the general idea; however each of these articles may be a group of its own, or it may belong in one of the previous groups)

Disambuiguation pages

edit

(it may be a good idea not to link the disambiguation pages here, because they may refer to different subjects)

Discussion

edit

There are several redirects (especially in de.wiki) which may confuse the bots.

I'm not familiar with the subject, so I may be missing some details about which is which. I'm not familiar with the Interwiki synchronization discussion process either, so please excuse me if I don't provide all the information needed.

I have used the Interwiki drifting project to gather some of the information posted above, but I'm not sure how recent is the data there.

Are there any tools to visualize the current links between various articles ? I heard something about Interwiki graphs, but I'm not sure if I can get the graph without a bot user account. Rsocol 06:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

gunpowder

edit

Massive confusion in this group of articles. The first two groups should probably be blacklisted for bots as even human editors have trouble with them.

Black powder

edit

The ancient stuff made of saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal.

  • de:Schwarzpulver - Obviously correct.
  • en:gunpowder - The British English name is used for the article. In the US, it's mostly called en:black powder, which is a redirect. A rename/move request to the US name has recently failed by a large margin, so is unlikely to succeed in the near future. In American English gunpowder may have a broader meaning, referring to any gun propellant.
  • fr:poudre à canon - Synonym given: poudre noire, which redirects; correct as far as I know. I'm uncertain as to which is more common in French today.
  • es:Pólvora - The lead is confusing as to the scope of the article, but the body of article is mostly about black powder with a link to a separate article for smokeless powders.
  • simple:gunpowder and simple:black powder seem to be describing the same thing, but have different interwiki links
  • it:polvere nera. A bot incorrectly removed the link to the English article [1]. I have reverted it.
  • ru.wiki - no article, but see next section.
  • pl:Proch czarny. Fine article, no links to English and French ones though.

Gun propellant

edit

Anything else that makes modern guns send the projectile down the barrel, like en:Smokeless powders and en:Black powder substitutes.

Smokeless powder

edit

This group of articles was generally okay, except for the occasional confusion with en:Poudre B caused by the claim on it:Polvere infume (which I don't know how correct it is) that in Italian the latter is used as a synonym for the whole class. I have fixed most links here.

Propellant

edit

These are generally fine except there seems to be no article or even a specific term in Russian for this. They have one on rocket propellants, ru:Ракетное топливо, but топливо simply means fuel. Порох is a rather unique word denoting gunpowder, and is related to порошок, which means powder of any kind. (Someone might enlighten us on the etymology of порох more, but let's not stray from the topic too much.)

Discussion

edit

The above reported by Have mörser, will travel 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Kangaroo

edit

The English Wikipedia article en:Kangaroo contains many interwiki links to articles about its genus (eu, ru...) and family (de, bg, uk...) instead. As the complexes are rather large, I am unsure what to do to correct them.


1. Create a list of entangled articles by giving acticles that were listed here as a hint to Pywikipediabot/interwiki.py   Done

2. Create a table with columns for previously listed groups, move previously grouped articles to their groups   Done

3. Move through languages, open each article, check for additional redirects to it (as interwiki.py includes referenced ones only), decide what should be in each categoty

If some language has "Kangaroo" article that contains taxonomic information about Macropus or Macropodidae without red link to it, then it should be in "Kangaroo" group, and there should be a redirect from corresopnding group. If generic "Kangaroo" article does not contain taxonomic information, or it has red link to Macropus or Macropodidae, then there is no need for a corresponding redirect.
  Done

4. Create redirects that should be created   Done

5. Update articles (either by language, or by group)   In progress…

6. Verify with interwiki.py


Table

edit
Group 1
The family, Macropodidae
  Done		 Group 2
The genus, Macropus
  Done		 Group 3
Kangaroos in general		 Other
ar   Done ar:كنغر
az   Done az:Kenqurular az:Macropus az:Kenquru
be-x-old   Done be-x-old:Macropus (create   Done) be-x-old:Кенгуру
bg   Done bg:Кенгурови bg:Кенгуру bg:Macropodidae
bn   Done bn:ক্যাংগারু
bo   Done bo:ཁུག་བྱི།
br   Done br:Macropodidae br:Macropus br:Kangourou
bs   Done bs:Macropus bs:Kengur
ca   Done ca:Macropòdid ca:Macropus ca:Cangur
cs   Done cs:Macropodidae cs:Klokanovití cs:Klokan
cy   Done cy:Cangarŵ
da   Done da:Kænguru
de   Done de:Macropodidae de:Macropus de:Kängurus de:Känguru
de:Känguruh
de:Känguru (Begriffsklärung)
el   Done el:Καγκουρό el:Καγκουρώ
en   Done en:Macropodidae en:Macropus en:Kangaroo
eo   Done eo:Makropo eo:Kanguruo
es   Done es:Macropodidae es:Macropus es:Canguro
eu   Done eu:Macropus eu:Kanguru
fa   Done fa:کانگورو fa:كانگورو
fa:کانگرو
fi   Done fi:Macropodidae fi:Jättikengurut fi:Kengurut fi:Isokengurut
fr   Done fr:Macropodidae fr:Macropus fr:Kangourou
gl   Done gl:Macropus (create   Done) gl:Canguro
hak   Done hak:Thoi-chhú
he   Done he:Macropus he:קנגורו he:קנגרו
hi   Done hi:कंगारू
hr   Done hr:Macropodidae (create   Done) hr:Klokani hr:Klokan
ht   Done ht:Kangourou
hu   Done hu:Macropodidae hu:Macropus hu:Kengurufélék hu:Valódi kenguruk
hy   Done hy:Ագեվազ hy:Կենգուրու
id   Done id:Kanguru id:Kangguru
io   Done io:Kanguruo
it   Done it:Macropodidae it:Macropus it:Canguro it:Canguri
ja   Done ja:カンガルー科 ja:カンガルー属 ja:カンガルー
jbo   Done jbo:Macropus (create   Done) jbo:kanguru
jv   Done jv:Kanguru
ka   Done ka:Macropodidae (create)   Done ka:კენგურუსებრნი ka:კენგურუები (Macropodinae, different cluster)
ka:კენგურუ (points to the island)
kk   Done kk:Кенгурулар kk:Кенгуру kk:Macropodidae
ko   Done ko:캥거루과 ko:캥거루 ko:캉가루
la   Done la:Macropodidae la:Macropus
lb   Done lb:Macropodidae (create   Done) lb:Känguruen
lbe   Done lbe:Macropodidae lbe:Кенгуру
lt   Done lt:Kengūriniai lt:Kengūra lt:Macropodidae
lv   Done lv:Ķenguru dzimta lv:Ķenguru ģints lv:Ķengurs
mk   Done mk:Macropus mk:Кенгур
ml   Done ml:കാംഗരൂ
mn   Done mn:Имж
ms   Done ms:Kanggaru
my   Done my:သားပိုက်ကောင်
ne   Done ne:कंगारु
nl   Done nl:Macropodidae nl:Macropus nl:Kangoeroes
nn   Done nn:Kenguruar nn:Kenguru
no   Done no:Kenguruer
nv   Done nv:Nahatʼeʼiitsoh nv:Náʼhatʼéʼiitsoh
oc   Done oc:Cangoró
pl   Done pl:Macropodidae pl:Kangurowate
pt   Done pt:Macropodidae pt:Macropus pt:Canguru
ro   Done ro:Cangur
ru   Done ru:Кенгуровые ru:Исполинские кенгуру ru:Кенгуру
scn   Done scn:Canguru
sh   Done sh:Macropodidae (create   Done) sh:Klokani sh:Klokan
simple   Done simple:Macropod simple:Macropus simple:Kangaroo
sk   Done sk:Macropodidae sk:Kengurovité
sl   Done sl:Macropus sl:Kenguru
sq   Done sq:Kanguri
sr   Done sr:Macropus (create   Done) sr:Кенгур
su   Done su:Kangguru
sv   Done sv:Kängurudjur sv:Macropus sv:Känguru
sw   Done sw:Macropodidae sw:Kangaruu
ta   Done ta:கங்காரு
te   Done te:కంగారూ
tg   Done tg:Кенгуру
th   Done th:จิงโจ้
tr   Done tr:Macropodidae tr:Kangurugiller
udm   Done udm:Macropodidae udm:Кенгуру
ug   Done ug:خالتىلىق چاشقان
uk   Done uk:Кенгурові uk:Macropus uk:Кенгуру
uz   Done uz:Kenguru
vi   Done vi:Kangaroo
vls   Done vls:Kangoeroe
xal   Done xal:Кенгуру
yi   Done yi:קענגערו
zh   Done zh:袋鼠科 zh:袋鼠
zh-yue   Done zh-yue:袋鼠

Discussion

edit

Conclusion

edit

Daucus carota

edit

In some wikipedias is made a distinction between subspecies Daucus carota ssp. sativus and the species Daucus carota. Example for this is de:Karotte and de:Möhre (Pflanzenart).

Group 1

edit

Wikipedias that make a distinction:

subgroup 1.1

edit

Daucus carota

subgroup 1.2

edit

Daucus carota ssp. sativus

Group 2

edit

Distinction doesn't appear there:

subgroup 2.1.

edit

Daucus carota

subgroup 2.2.

edit

Daucus carota ssp. sativus

subgroup 2.3.

edit

Both Daucus carota spp. sativus and Daucus carota

Group 3

edit

There is only an article about the supspecies Daucus carota ssp. sativus.

Group 4

edit

The topic is Daucus, a genus.

Group 5

edit

There aren't information about the topic.

Group 6

edit

I can't read the letters there:

supgroup 6.1

edit

They have Daucus carota in the Taxobox.

subgroup 6.2.

edit

They have Daucus carota sativus in the Taxobox.

subgroup 6.3.

edit

They have Daucus in the article.

subgroup 6.4.

edit

They don't have a Taxobox.

Discussion

edit

Hello. Who can correct the muddle, please? Greetings --Tlustulimu 12:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Normandy Landings

edit

There is a big mess in the iw-links concerning the allied invasion of Normandy. I will try to create some groups based on the english-language articles. Please place articles from different wikipedias in correct group, and feel free to add new groups or merge the existing ones.

Group 1

edit

Invasion of Normandy

Group 2

edit

Normandy Landings

Group 3

edit

Operation Overlord

Group 4

edit

Operation Neptune

Group 5

edit

Battle of Normandy

Group 6

edit

D-Day

Group 7

edit

Unsorted

Discussion

edit

Conclusion

edit

Open source vs Open source software

edit

There are two different terms "Open source" and "Open source software". Difference between them is evident. Open Source is the idea in general for free accessibility to a software's source code, and Open source software is software under a license that meets the Open Source Definition. But many of articles in different languages messed up correspondence of interwikies.

Please, help to place unsorted links in correct group and check articles already sorted. DixonD 12:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General idea

edit

Software under license

edit

Articles that combine terms

edit

(Empty now but probably there is some bunch of articles that cannot be unambiguously in any of previous groups)

Unsorted

edit

Please, move links to appropriate group.

Discussion

edit
  • I'm far not sure that you made your part of classification right. As to me only
    and, perhaps (I'm not sure as language is more tough, though alphabet is latin)
    are devoted to "General idea" (meaning not narrowed to software stuff) while
    are (as to the best of my ability to grasp their content by some keywords analysis) devoted to software though their names says "Open source".
    and regarding
    I'm not sure yet (languages are tough for me beginning from their alphabets :-P) but "fa" article is more "Yes"(general) than "no" (narrowed to software).
    So what was the reasons/reasoning for you for your classification of "de", "es", "fr" articles (as well as "id", "fa", "zh")?
    Anyhow your data shows already that "en", "nl" and "fa" (and perhaps some other if we will find them, "ta" seems to be an easy guess) are main actors which create the mess in interwiki as in those Wikipedias ontology is different (one can say - more advanced but it doesn't matter for our issue) while interwiki lists in them doesn't reflect that fact. What a positive contrast is "sl" Wikipedia in that meaning!
    --pavlosh 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Yes, I'm voting for moving above mentioned "de", "es", "fr" articles from first to second group.
    P.P.S. I have something more to say about this topic, but let's go… leap-by-leap :-P , so it's your turn now ;)
    P.P.P.S. Aha, I've noticed this "resorting" so doubts regarding this "zh" article seems… busted :) as for me --pavlosh 10:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for de,es and fr I simply used Google Translate and doing some investigation of received translation. But I will be very appreciated if someone - natives or at least with good knowledge of those language (and all other too:)) - checks if my grouping is true. Anyway, please, don't use "some keywords analysis" or other heuristics, which can be almost bad and gives wrong results. Only good revise of article's content and nothing other!;) --DixonD 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what do we have: mine is "something is better than nothing" (heuristics can do until we will not get somebody with good command) while your approach is "everything or nothing" (only native speaker or somebody with good language command are authorised to ever touch the thing). I mean that I would do sorting on the base of "heuristics" and then (sometime) doublecheck/proofsorting could be made, so these two approaches are not alternatives - there might be combination (first/my approach as pre-processing and second/your approach as final processing).
    What would you say?
    --pavlosh 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we must do 100% investigation because one little mistake can cause that someone will correct it in future and we will be there from where we came;) So 100% or nothing, in other case all our efforts can be vain. --DixonD 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Native Spanish here. I think es:Código abierto relates better to en:Open source software (looks like some content is translated from or inspired by the English article). --ColdWind 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for your input.
    Would you be more clear/specific (as clear as possible) regarding your wording "relates better to": does it mean that article in Spanish (es:Código abierto) contains at least something about "Open source" as a general concept/philosophy that is beyond "Open source software" topic as that? … or not?
    --pavlosh 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the problem comes from the confusion between en:Free software and en:Open source software. They basically treat of the same concepts in two distinct articles. They should probably be merged (as OSS is a point of view of free software and should be treated as such, or free software was only a term used in the early days of the movement, I don't know exactly, but 2 separate articles is POV pushing IMO, plus mainly redundant). Anyway the current treatement is very confusing for readers. It is not surprising if it creates a big mess (on fr:wiki it created endless editwars, neutrality conflicts, etc.)
    So basically there should be 2 articles, one about Open source philosophy, and one about Free and open source software (FOSS). In fr:wiki, Open source philosophy should be fr:Open source but the concept is not treated yet. Also there is fr:Logiciel libre which talks about FOSS. I'm going to propose that to the free software portal fr:Discussion Portail:Logiciels libres.
    In en:wiki, I believe merging en:Free software and en:Open source software into en:Free and Open source software, and keeping en:Open source (possibly renaming it in en:Open source philosophy, or creating a disambiguation page) could clarify the situation.
    Calimo 10:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, we appreciate your input a lot.
    You're right that roots of this particular interwiki problem are mainly in ontology with some portion of people mistakes (or just unawareness?) on the top.
    I would put aside long (and rather painful) ontology dispute regarding
    «Free software»↔«Open source software»
    In the meantime would you (as native speaker in French) make a conclusion is fr:Open source article with it's current content is about «Open source software» strictly?
    --pavlosh 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem can be solved if the articles that handle open source software but carry the name open source are renamed to reflect the content, as for example en:open source software handles open source software, en:open source handles open source in different fields, (The nov 2006 version was linked as a proper source from Harvard[[2]]). Mion 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Apple vs. Malus domestica

edit

The interwiki links in hsb:Jabłuko and hsb:Zahrodna jabłučina were mixed, although the first one has the topic apple (like a fruit, not a species) and the second one has the topic Malus domestica (a species). Yesterday I manually repaired this in the upper Sorbian articles only.

I found three groups.

Group 1

edit

They are in hsb:Jabłuko (the fruit of trees in Malus genus).

I removed all interwiki links, which now are in the second group and have to be in third group and not had to be corrected in the second group.

Subgroup 1.1

edit

A wider botanical concept of a type of fruit (i.e. the fruit of Apple tree, pear, etc.)

Group 2

edit

They are in hsb:Zahrodna jabłučina (the species Malus domestica)

I removed some interwiki links, which was in it and has to be in the first group:

  • cs, el, ksh, la, lb, lv, lt, mg, oc, ru, sco

I corrected some interwiki links, whose old ones are now in the first group:

And I removed some interwiki links, which has to be in the third group. I corrected one link only.

Group 3

edit

Some interwiki links where in both pages, but they have to be in the page hsb:Jabłučina, because its topic is the genus Maluṡ. But I am not added them there yet.

Discussion

edit

I only corrected the articles hsb:Jabłuko and hsb:Zahrodna jabłučina in the upper Sorbian wikipedia and the Uppersorbian interwiki in de:Kulturapfel (an article about the fruit is not there). I hope, that anybody can help to correct this muddle. Greetings --Tlustulimu 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

<rishabh> </noinclude>

Finger vs. Digit (anatomy)

edit

English "Finger" refers to the digit of the hand only. In many languages, there is no specific one-word term for finger, and they tend to link ther articles about digit (i.e. term describing both finger and toe) to en:Finger.

Group "Finger"

edit

These articles should refer to digits of the hand only.

Other interwikis in en:Finger must be checked by native speakers. --Maxxicum 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group "Digit (anatomy)"

edit

These articles should refer to terms which cover both fingers and toes.

Some interwikis from en:Finger might need to be moved into this group. --Maxxicum 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages directing to fingers and toes

edit

These disambiguations might need to have another entry for the term that would describe fingers and toes collectively to match many other languages. --Maxxicum 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

Some interwiki bots keep reverting my edits of interwiki and resuming the interwiki conflict. --Maxxicum 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some languages that were correctly linked with en:Finger. I believe eo:Fingro might be wrong. Without knowing esperanto, I would guess "kvin ekstremaĵoj de la mano aŭ de la piedo" means "five extremities of the hand or of the foot" Wikijens 09:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Maxxicum 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speak Esperanto. I was surprised. I thought eo:Fingro would go to en:Finger, however according to this online Esperanto dictionary it is like "digit". If you want to talk about the toe, it's piedfingro, and finger is manfingro. -- Yekrats 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This confirms that eo:fingro is en:Digit (anatomy). Let's correct the interwiki. --Maxxicum 19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Trauma

edit

Iw-links concerning physical and psychological trauma are mixed up.

Group 1

edit

Disambiguation page

Group 2

edit

Psychological

Group 3

edit

Physical

Group 4

edit

Wound

Ungrouped

edit

Discussion

edit

I have tried to group all iw-links I have found.

In the case of Norwegian and Danish, the articles no:Traume and da:Traume mentions both the physical and psychological, but are mainly about the psychological, so I have placed them in this group. This could also be the case with Polish and Czech, but I'm not sure, since I don't know the languages.

Italian it:Ferita has mostly iw-links to en:Physical Trauma and equivalent, while etymological connected es:Herida, pt:Ferida and others are mostly grouped with en:Wound. I have added it:Trauma fisico to Group 3, and suggest it:Ferita be grouped with en:Wound.

Swedish sv:Trauma should probably be grouped with the disambiguation pages, only it is lacking the formal template.

Dutch nl:Verwonding, I'm not sure if fits better with en:Wound or en:Physical trauma. I think maybe the first even if now it links to the second.

There are several links to non-existing eo:Trauxmato. These should be removed. Also ro:Trauma has been deleted, but don't know if this is only temporarily.

All the slavic Rana or similar seem to be linked with en:Wound, so I guess this is correct. Russian and Ukranian ru:Травма and uk:Травма are both linked with en:Physical Trauma, but I can not judge if this is correct.

I hope somebody can fix the languages left (and correct any mistake I made) and place {{Done}} after the language if it is correctly placed and that someone with a bot can clear up all the links when all is cleared out. Wikijens 12:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit
edit

I think iw-links between Featured articles-pages are ok, but in the case of Good artickes I think some are wrong. They might be former pages of featured articles or lists of denominated articles or lists of pages shown on front page. Please write {{Done}} behind your language if it is placed in the correct group and feel free to add more groups if necessary (denominated, shown on front page, featured lists etc.).

Group 1

edit

Level 1 quality articles

Group 2

edit

Level 2 quality articles

Group 3

edit

Former Level 1 quality articles

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Conclusion

edit

Occultation-Eclipse

edit

Some iw-links seem to be confused between these two (some might also be confused with solar eclipse).

Group 1

edit

Group 2

edit

Group 3

edit

Ungrouped

edit

Discussion

edit

Please place the ungrouped articles in the correct group (and correct the ones I have already placed if they are wrong). Wikijens 12:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zh:日食 = zh-yue:日食 = en:Solar eclipse, zh:蝕 (zh:食 (天文現象)) = ja:食 (天文) = en:Eclipse, ja:掩蔽 = zh:掩星 = en:occultation--Shizhao 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Antarctica

edit
 
Antar...something

For the south polar region, some languages use two different terms for the continent Antarctica (ru:Антарктида, pl:Antarktyda, no:Antarktika) and greater the Antarctic region (ru:Антарктика, pl:Antarktyka, no:Antarktis). Where available, the category for the continent is a subcategory of the region. In other languages these are considerd to be synonymous and only one name is used (en:Antarctica, sv:Antarktis). Odd enough, the -ica/-ika/-yka spelling is used for the continent in Norwegian, but for the region in Russian/Polish.

Both the articles and the categories have completely messed up interwiki clusters.

Should the langauges with separate terms be encouraged to merge them into one? We are merging prizes+medals+other honours into the more abstract "awards" category. I think it is unlikely that languages with a single term would introduce another one.

Lang Continent Greater region
en Antarctica, Category:Antarctica
sv Antarktis, Kategori:Antarktis
no Antarktika, Kategori:Antarktika Antarktis, Kategori:Antarktis
pl Antarktyda, Kategoria:Antarktyda Antarktyka, Kategoria:Antarktyka
ru Антарктида, Категория:Антарктида Антарктика, Категория:Антарктика

Discussion

edit

Topic started by me. --LA2 02:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion

edit

Dollar

edit

In Chinese (I don't know if there is another language like this), 銀圓 Just discuss the coin minted from the silver, no include the paper form or other forms.

Dollar, the currency of many countries

edit

Discuss a name of the official currency in several countries.

Disambig

edit

Some of the pages are defined as disambiguation.

Silver coin

edit

Just discuss the coin minted from the silver, not including the paper form or other forms.

These are unclear

edit

Currency

edit

Discussion

edit

Chinese

edit

I think the correct interwiki of "Dollar" would be "元 (貨幣)" in Chinese. And the Chinese yuan, which is "元 (貨幣)" interwiki to, must interwiki to a non-exsit article of "元 (人民币)"。--Dingar 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is zh:元 (貨幣) really about currencies named "Dollar"? I don't know Chinese, but it seems that it is a general article about currency. It mentions Yen, Euro and others and Babelfish translates its title as "Yuan (currency)". --Amir E. Aharoni 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! you are right. zh:元 (貨幣) include Yen, Euro, Dollar and others.--124.72.221.76 13:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am forget to login yesterday. 124.72.221.76 is me.--Dingar 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it is still unclear where these Chinese articles should link. en:Currency? --Amir E. Aharoni 14:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ar:, fa: and ur:

edit

The ar:, fa: and ur: all belong to the Dollar part. I am moving them there. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Brand and trademark

edit

The interwiki linking of articles about trademarks and brands is pretty hard. They describe two main different, but somewhat overlapping concepts - "brand" as corporate identity in discussion of marketing and "trademark" as a legal term, which is separate, but quite related.

Here's how i tried to group the existing articles in different languages:

Brand

edit
"Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers."

Trademark

edit
"Distinctive sign or indicator, used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity, to identify that the products or services with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. Often indicated with ™, ℠ or ® (depending on legal status)."

Hard to understand

edit

Wrong

edit

This is definitely wrong, as this is just the disambiguation for the word "Serbian", but it appears on some articles.

Discussion

edit

Can anyone please help with moving the links from the "Hard to understand" section to their right section? Of course, checking that the current grouping is correct would also be very helpful. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the automated analysis of this component. --Bolo1729 10:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl:Marka producenta

edit

In fact this article describes both Brand and Trademark as if there one thing. The first line, translated to English, goes: "Brand, also known as manufacturer mark, trademark". I suggest removing them from interwiki linking until it'll get cut in two.


nl:Merk

edit

As a native Dutch speaker, I understand your choice for nl:Merk's classification as "hard to understand". The article discusses various aspects of dealing with brands, including marketing and legal, but not very explicitly. One could split up the article, but that could destroy the "whole picture" of how brands fit into the (capitalistic) economy and how both aspects are inseparable: without identity it cannot be protected and without protection it fails as an identity. In the English Wikipedia, it could be argued that there should be a 'glue' article "Brand", a marketing article "Branding" and a legal article "Trademark". --nl:Gebruiker:Bdijkstra as 82.169.238.67 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sq:Marka tregtare/sq:Marka tregëtare

edit

Yes, sq:Marka tregtare and sq:Marka tregëtare are variant spellings of the same phrase, and I believe the former is correct (based on both a dictionary and google counts). They're talking about symbols and words that are intellectual property, not broader concepts like brand, so I suppose they correspond to "trademark". Unfortunately my Albanian isn't good enough to merge them myself, though I can stick a merge stamp on them. (Also, Emërtimet Tregtare translates literally as "trade names".) --sq:Përdoruesi:Steorra as 68.252.47.196 05:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Marque commerciale

edit

fr:Marque commerciale clearly is about en:Trademark and its legal implications. Based on the title and most of the content, fr:Image de marque (literally "brand image") seems to be about en:Brand, although it links to en:Brand management. --Latebird 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Remembrance day

edit

Starting from ksh:Volkstrauertag via de:Volkstrauertag we come to:

  1. en:Volkstrauertag
  2. en:Remembrance Day
  3. en:Armistice Day

These days are all on the same date but are having different meanings. Luckily, en:Halloween was not number 4.

Solution: Isolate the meanings.

Problem 1: Maybe some other languages have still other meanings in the cluster which I am currently not aware of.

Problem 2: I can only handle an incomplete set of languages/scripts, so I cannot do it alone.

Discussion

edit
  • HE: (checked, and didn't find any articles)
  • Volkstrauertag is on a different date.Andreas 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(check and report more languages)

Conclusion

edit

elementary-primary-comprehensive-school-education-etc

edit

There are several starting point in various wikipedias, all having to do with elementary/basic/secondary/comprehensive/collaborative schools/schooling/learning/education.

They connect:

  1. en:Comprehensive school
  2. en:Elementary school
  3. en:Gastropoda — (see #Group 2)
  4. en:Gymnasium (school)
  5. en:High school
  6. en:Liceum ogólnokształcące — (see also #Group 1.A)
  7. en:Lyceum — (see #Group 1)
  8. en:Primary education
  9. en:Primary school
  10. en:Secondary education
  11. en:Secondary education in France#Lycée
  12. en:Slug — (see also #Group 2.B)

One of the problems apparently is that, school systems in different countries just do not compare. Likely, most school types apply to a much smaller set of countries (and thus likely, languages, too) than current interwiki links try to make us believe. --Purodha Blissenbach 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1

edit

Starting from en:Lyceum gives a clean group:

  1. ca:Liceu (antiga Grècia)
  2. cs:Lyceum
  3. de:Lykeion
  4. el:Λύκειο
  5. en:Lyceum
  6. eo:Liceo
  7. es:Liceo
  8. fr:Lycée
  9. he:ליקיאון - Aristotle's school near Athens, est. 335 BCE
  10. hu:Líceum
  11. it:Liceo di Aristotele
  12. ja:リュケイオン
  13. nl:Lyceum
  14. pl:Lykeion
  15. pt:Liceu
  16. ru:Лицей
  17. sk:Lykeion
  18. sr:Лицеј
  19. sv:Lykeion
  20. tr:Lykeion

thus cutting all links from the others to this group might be a helpful step. --Purodha Blissenbach 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1.A

edit

Starting from it:Liceo, things already get messy:

  1. cs:Lyceum
  2. de:Lyzeum ← not good: disambiguation. Links ignored.
  3. el:Λύκειο
  4. en:Lyceum
  5. fr:Lycée
  6. he:ליקיאון - Aristotle's school near Athens, est. 335 BCE
  7. hu:Lyceum → hu:Líceum
  8. it:Liceo
  9. ja:リセ
  10. pl:Liceum ogólnokształcące
  11. sr:Лицеј
  12. sv:Lykeion
  13. ca:Liceu (antiga Grècia)
  14. eo:Liceo
  15. es:Liceo
  16. nl:Lyceum
  17. pt:Liceu
  18. ru:Лицей
  19. sk:Lykeion
  20. tr:Lykeion
  21. uk:Середня загальноосвітня школа

Group 2

edit

Starting from any of the following yields no problem links either:

  1. ar:بطنيات القدم
  2. bg:Коремоноги
  3. bs:Puževi
  4. ca:Gasteròpode
  5. cs:Plži
  6. da:Snegl
  7. de:Schnecken
  8. en:Gastropoda
  9. eo:Gastropodo
  10. es:Gastropoda
  11. et:Teod
  12. fa:شکم‌پایان
  13. fi:Kotilot
  14. fr:Gastropoda
  15. he:חלזונות - Gastropoda
  16. hr:Puževi
  17. hu:Csigák
  18. io:Gasteropodo
  19. is:Sniglar
  20. it:Gastropoda
  21. ja:腹足綱
  22. ka:მუცელფეხიანები
  23. ko:복족류
  24. la:Gastropoda
  25. lt:Pilvakojai
  26. lv:Gliemeži
  27. mk:Полжав
  28. nds-nl:Slekken
  29. nl:Slakken
  30. nn:Sniglar
  31. no:Snegler
  32. pl:Ślimaki
  33. pt:Gastrópodes
  34. qu:Wiksachaki
  35. ru:Брюхоногие
  36. simple:Gastropoda
  37. sk:Ulitníky
  38. sl:Polži
  39. sq:Kërmilli
  40. sr:Пужеви
  41. sv:Snäckor
  42. tr:Karından bacaklılar
  43. uk:Черевоногі
  44. zh:腹足纲

--Purodha Blissenbach 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 2.B

edit

starting from en:Slug yields a duplicate each for almost all languages, and collects all members of the above #Group 2, too. --Purodha Blissenbach 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

I've uploaded an automatic analysis for this area, it's here. It is based on database snapshots from late August 2008.

At least three "bottlenecks" in the graph of meanings can be identified:

removed from en:Secondary education in France and fr:Lycée en France, changed interwiki to fa:لیسه (حلزون) elswhere. Andreas 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Meaning 12

edit

de:Klammeraffe ("@-sign") should be isolated. It is unrelated to en:slug (disambiguation). The link is caused by homonym hu:Csiga which means both "@" and "slug" as it appears to me. (Imho linking disambiguations other than literals (abbreviations, figures, codes) works usually only between related languages having very compatible sets of homonyms) --Purodha Blissenbach 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the interwikis from these pages. Andreas 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

edit

Google

edit

Currently, we have the situation where the search engine Google and the company Google Inc. are totally mixed up in the various interwikis. These need to be cleaned up and separated.

Search engine

edit

Company

edit

Unsorted

edit

Wrong

edit

Discussion

edit

Here's an automated analysis of this component. Indeed: there are lots of incorrent interlanguage links between the meanings containing en:Google (meaning #9) and en:Google search (meaning #1). Interwikis to/from the two Bengali articles: bn:গুগল (সংখ্যা) and bn:গুগল (কোম্পানি) seem to be one of the core reasons of inconsistencies. --Bolo1729 11:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Some languages don't distinguish between different google activities: they have one article for the google company, the search engine, and all other activities (gmail, gdocs, etc'). I suggest to classify such articles under a new category or under the google-company. What do you think? TaBaZzz 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the unknowns, I get to the following:

(still working on it as you see) - Andre Engels 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier - Military personnel

edit

These two categories are interlinked:

In German, they do not seem to make a destintion between them, or they only have:

which is "person in the military" but actually, the category seems not to contain civil personnel, and only persons.

--77.190.85.110 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've run an analysis for this case. The graph of meanings clearly shows that en:Category:Military personnel is the central category in this case. There is quite a lot of confusion between that and en:Category:Generals, as well as en:Category:Soldiers. --Bolo1729 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civilian military persons? Hmmm... Actually, de:Kategorie:Militärperson includes the following subcategories containing (at least partly) civilians and/or noncombattants:
According to the respective articles, a en:Solder is a combattant with land forces only, while a de:Soldat is is a combattant in any military force. Because of that difference in scope, matching categories are not to be expected on that level. --Latebird 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft .NET vs Framework .NET

edit

It is a three way situation in the language th, tr, eu, it and fr there are is an articles about the subject Microsoft .NET and one about Framework .NET.

In there other languages there is only one article.


Group 1

edit

The Microsoft .NET group


Group 2

edit

The .NET Framework group


Group 3

edit

Group 4

edit

Discussion

edit

On the French wiki They say

edit

"Je pense que ces articles pourraient être fusionnés. Qu'en pensez-vous ? --Scls19fr (d) 1 mars 2008 à 22:25 (CET)

Oui, comme c'est déjà le cas dans plusieurs wiki étranger. En tout cas, je ne voit pas de différences entre les 2. D'ailleurs, les 2 pages étaient fusionnées à l'origine et les pages de discussions sont encore communes! Romainhk (QTx10) 4 mars 2008 à 21:30 (CET)"
  • Somewhere else but also copied on the dutch wiki they say

" Hello, there is problem with two articles (Microsoft .NET and .NET Framework) on several wiki's. I think, that the best solution is to merge these articles, but it mus do people on these languages. JAn Dudík 8 sep 2008 17:01 (CEST)

I see. So we'll wait until it is changed in the other language, right? --Halvar 8 sep 2008 19:30 (CEST)"

from the danish .net talkpage

edit

Please, choose the correct interwiki. On 8 langages are two articles, .NET Framework and Microsoft .Net. You have mixed both versions. Name and most interwiki is like Microsoft .NET, but you still revert changes. Now I make second version, so, you may choose. 77.48.45.229 2. nov 2007, 07:21 (CET)

Could you please specify which 8 languages that have two articles? On enWiki, en:Microsoft .Net is a redirect to en:.NET Framework, on svWiki, sv:Microsoft .Net redirects to sv:Dotnet, on deWiki de:Microsoft .NET redirects to de:.NET - I haven't been able to find a single of the dual versions you are referring to. If you believe that some interwiki links are incorrect, then please specify them here, along with a reason why you think they are incorrect. -- JGC 2. nov 2007, 09:30 (CET)

First set: 

bs:Microsoft .NET
ca:.NET
cs:.NET
de:.NET
es:.NET
eu:.NET
fi:.NET
fr:Microsoft .NET
he:.NET
hr:.NET
hu:Microsoft .NET
it:Microsoft .NET
nl:.NET
no:.NET
pl:.NET
pt:Microsoft .NET
ru:Microsoft .NET
sl:Microsoft .NET
sv:Dotnet
ta:மைக்ராசாஃப்ட் .நெட்
th:Microsoft .NET
tr:NoktaNet
uk:Microsoft .NET

Second set: 

ar:إطار‌عمل دوت‌نت
bg:.NET Framework
en:.NET Framework
es:.NET Framework
eu:.NET Framework
fr:Framework .NET
it:.NET Framework
ja:.NET Framework
ko:닷넷 프레임워크
lt:.NET Framework
pl:.NET Framework
ru:.NET Framework
th:ดอตเน็ตเฟรมเวิร์ก
tr:.NET Framework
zh:.NET Framework

Two artices are in: es,eu,fr,it,pl,ru,th,trTemplate:Usigneret

I have changed your lists to make them clickable. I would be glad if you tried to describe the definition of the first vs the second set - none of the 8 wikis that do distinguish, are in a language that I understand. If I guess correctly, you would like the interwikis to distinguish between .NET as a development platform and .NET as a software component. There may be some reason in doing this, however I believe that when most wikis only have one article about .NET - and many of them quite elaborate ones - it will be a mistake to split them in different sets, according to which "main focus" they might have. As far as I can see, the "one .NET article"-wikis have articles that more or less covers both aspects of .NET - and to delink some of them, because a smaller group of wikis have two different .NET articles, would - in my mind - be a mistake. -- JGC 2. nov 2007, 14:31 (CET)

I don!t understant this problematic (and from these languages only little bit pl), But I run interwiki bot and these articles are problematic. Yes, maybe the best solution would be if all languages have only one article... 77.48.45.229 9. nov 2007, 16:15 (CET) ([:cs:User:JAn Dudík]])


About the name of the articles that is answered very well on the german wiki "Sollte dieser Artikel nicht richtigerweise auf .NET Framework lauten ?"

edit

Ich bin etwas verwirrt bezüglich der Namensgebung für diesen Artikel. Ursprünglich gab es ja mal eine Menge von Softwareprodukten aus dem Hause Microsoft, die den Namen .NET tragen sollten bzw. es sollte alles irgendwie mal .NET sein. Übrig geblieben ist davon letztendlich das .NET Framework, das in diesem Artikel ja auch (ausschließlich) beschrieben wird. Ich denke der Korrektheit halber sollte der Artikel daher auch .NET Framework und nicht .NET heißen. Insbesondere da .NET mittlerweile semantisch nur noch als Abkürzung für das .NET Framework bzw. für Technologien, die im Rahmen des .NET Frameworks realisiert wurden, verwendet wird.

--Robert Niemann 12:40, 29. Aug. 2008 (CEST)

sehe ich genauso. Was meinen die anderen? --Kurt Seebauer 09:56, 30. Aug. 2008 (CEST)
Ich ebenfalls.
Sehe ich ebenso. .NET ist die Technologie, um diese nutzen zu können, braucht man ein .NET Framework. Diese kann, muss aber (Beispiel Mono) nicht von MS sein. Das für Windows heißt bei MS gaaaanz offiziel: .NET Framework. Es verhält sich ähnlich wie bei J2EE: J2EE ist eine Spezifikation und kein Produkt, analog .NET. .NET ist die Spezifikation, das Framework die technische Umsetzung. Es scheint so als haben die Autoren dieses Artikel nie bei MS vorbeigeschaut - dort ist stets vom .NET Framework die Rede - der erste Weblink ist das beste Beispiel. PF20080901


In short my point of view

edit

.Net is the general name and .NET Framework or Microsoft ,NET are the names you use if you are talking from one POV and that is view that there is only OS in the world. So the last four last versions that not merged need to merged and the rest needs to renamed to .NET Carsrac 08:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Rice

edit

en:Rice, which is concidered an important article lacks a lot of iw-links, probably due to some iw-conflict.

Group 1

edit

Links from en:Rice

Group 2

edit

Links from no:ris

Discussion

edit

This is the way they are grouped at the moment, not how I suggest they should be grouped. Some languages have the same article included in both groups, while a few have different articles. English has no article in group 1, so maybe the best starting point is one of the languages with two articles (f.x. cs), and then the others can be placed where they fit better. Wikijens 18:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lang General Oryza Oryza sativa (asian) Oryza glaberrima (african)
en Rice Oryza Oryza sativa African rice
cs Rýže Rýže setá
ko 벼 쌀
ja 米 イネ
zh 稻属 稻
uk Рис Рис (рід) Рис посівний Рис африканський
es Oryza Oryza sativa
it Riso (alimento) Oryza sativa
is Hrísgrjón

An attempt to classify the articles. I don't understand all these languages, so it's just a guess. Please correct any mistakes. English article Oryza sativa has no iw's at the moment. Wikijens 13:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I have expanded the table a bit. Spanish article Oryza sativa seems to describe rice in general and might fot better in the first group. Wikijens 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that ja:イネ is about Oryza sativa. But ja:米 is about cooked rice. --Fryed-peach 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is wrong. --Fryed-peach 05:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

Contre-la-montre-Time trial

edit

There is an iw-conflict concerning the term time trial in cycling and other sports. French has an article fr:Contre-la-montre about the phenomenon in cycling (both individual and team version in same article). English has an article en:Time trial which is more general (not only cycling) and two seperate articles for cycling (en:Individual time trial and en:Team time trial.

Group 1

edit

General (all sports)

Group 2

edit

Cycling (individual and team)

Group 3

edit

Cycling (individual)

Group 4

edit

Cycling (team)

Discussion

edit

I just added a few languages in each group. Wikijens 13:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

A Few Good Men

edit

Describe the case here: what is the starting point of the problem, what causes the conflict, write a general proposal for fixing.

If it is possible, try to find out which are the groups of articles that should be fixed and list them here by language. Try giving every group a meaningful name.

a 1992 film

edit

a play by Aaron Sorkin

edit

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Conclusion

edit

Radioactivity

edit

en:Radioactivity redirects to en:Radioactive decay. That could be a problem:

en:radioactivity

edit

zh:放射性 (Hillgentleman removed the interwiki links, added one pointing to en:radioactivity, and added template:nobot)

en:radioactive decay

edit

zh:放射性衰变

publishing

edit

Confusion between Publishing, Printing, Edition etc.

en:Publication

edit

This section wasn't checked. Possibly there are duplications.

en:Publishing

edit

en:Printing

edit

en:Edition

edit

Publishing house/person

edit

Disambiguation

edit

Other

edit

Discussion

edit

Conclusion

edit

nl:Röntgenfoto vs de:Röntgen and de:Röntgenaufnahme

edit

Short description from nl:Overleg:Röntgenfoto#Interwiki conflict:

Now the article nl:Röntgenfoto (and relevant redirect from nl:Röntgenopname) interwiki links to more general terms: de:Röntgen, en:Radiography, uk:Радіографія etc. I suggest to correct interwiki to more specific articles: de:Röntgenaufnahme and uk:Рентгенограма.


Group 1

edit

Seems to be valid group:

Group 2

edit

Group in nl:Röntgenfoto, seems to be invalid (links to more general term)

Discussion

edit

uk:Рентгенограма is an image (X-ray photograph, roentgenogram).

uk:Рентгенографія (and ru:Рентгенография) is a technology of obtaining such images (X-ray imaging, roentgenography).

And uk:Радіографія is a more general technology of obtainig images from radiation (not only X-rays), for example, in mineralogy, for radio-active minerals analysis.

So, it seems there should be 3 groups. Olexa Riznyk (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I agree, these three are about different things, at least this was told during the study in medical school... Thus, it should belong to 3 different groups. Regards, --Andrux (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

edit

curator

edit

In some languages we have two article of curator, one general and one for art curator. In addition, in many languages the hebrew link is to אוצר and it need to change to he:אוצר (מקצוע).

Group 1

edit

global curator

Group 2

edit

Conservator - art/museum curator

others

edit

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Conclusion

edit

Mobile and Mobile Phone Operating Systems

edit

Status:   Done --82.144.192.117 13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some interwikis need to be corrected --46.119.35.194 04:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Mobile Operating Systems

edit
Mobile Operating Systems: Interwiki to edit Interwikis to (remove from it) and add in it Status
cs:Kategorie:Operační systémy pro mobilní zařízení diff   Done
en:Category:Mobile operating systems diff   Done
fa:رده:سیستم‌عامل‌های موبایل diff   Done
ko:분류:모바일 운영 체제 diff   Done
ml:വർഗ്ഗം:മൊബൈൽ ഓപ്പറേറ്റിങ് സിസ്റ്റം diff   Done
ms:Kategori:Sistem pengendalian bimbit diff   Done
pl:Kategoria:Mobilne systemy operacyjne diff   Done
pt:Categoria:Sistemas operacionais móveis diff   Done
ru:Категория:Операционные системы для мобильных устройств diff   Done
sk:Kategória:Operačné systémy pre mobilné zariadenia diff   Done
uk:Категорія:Мобільні операційні системи diff   Done

Mobile Phone Operating Systems

edit
Mobile Phone Operating Systems: Interwiki to edit Interwikis to (remove from it) and add in it Status
ar:تصنيف:أنظمة تشغيل الهاتف المحمول diff   Done
de:Kategorie:Smartphone-Betriebssystem diff   Done
en:Category:Mobile phone operating systems diff   Done
fa:رده:سیستم‌عامل‌های تلفن همراه diff   Done
hu:Kategória:Mobiltelefonos operációs rendszerek diff   Done
ml:വർഗ്ഗം:മൊബൈൽ ഫോൺ ഓപ്പറേറ്റിംഗ് സിസ്റ്റങ്ങൾ diff   Done
ms:Kategori:Sistem pengendalian telefon bimbit diff   Done
no:Kategori:Operativsystemer for mobile enheter diff   Done
uk:Категорія:Операційні системи мобільних телефонів diff   Done

Problematic cases

edit

(Articles that you can´t sort on your own)

(Of course, there can be Group 3, Group 4, etc.)

Discussion

edit

(Optional discussion.)

Archived discussions

edit

September 2008

edit

October 2008

edit

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interwiki_synchronization&oldid=14798292"