Blockers for Wikimedia wiki domain renaming
Open, Needs TriagePublic

Description

The domains of several Wikimedia wikis should be renamed: T21986.

This was done once, when be-x-old.wikipedia.org was renamed to be-tarask.wikipedia.org, but this renaming exposed several issues. Performing any more renaming is not advised until these issues are resolved. This task tracks these issues.

Amire80 created this task.Jul 29 2017, 1:05 PM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJul 29 2017, 1:05 PM
deryckchan added a subscriber: deryckchan.

@deryckchan I have no idea on why you give this token, is there anything that makes you disappointed?

It's intended as encouragement: fire for the engine, or a burning desire to
make things happen!

I think that token (and fire in general) is generally associated with destruction but sure.

(off topic) While I sometimes use them, I don't really understand what tokens are for. We could just live with like/love; dislike/heartbreak and "the world burns" and get rid of the whole lot of others which do not really add anything meaningful. Or just drop all tokens. I wouldn't really mind. If you have to say something, say it on the task. That said, let's get back on the task and ignore the tokens.

Liuxinyu970226 added a subscriber: Nsaa.EditedSep 18 2017, 4:25 AM

PS: By investigating T173602 it looks like that some community members like @Nsaa still oppose the renaming because reasons like α. those codes are used in our Wikimedia servers for years to decades? β. those renaming actions can break SQL/SPARQL? γ. It's too hard to "fix" those urls on paper materials? and others. So how to encourage communities to accept could also be a blocker IMO.


Here are my comments that about those so-called oppose concerns:

  1. renaming database names are really the most hardest actions in our Ethernet world, and shouldn't be mentioned on this task (though, if you have knowledge on how handling it you are feel free to answer T83609)
  2. fixing langcodes in wikitexts/lua modules/local interface messages can just be a lot of bot works, anything that really should ask at Phabricator for those?
  3. regarding fix codes on paper materials, I would suggest to get help from some (mainly) Chinese-made stuffs "Correction Tapes (修正带)" or "Correction Fluid (涂改液)"

...

(3) doesn't concern the vast majority of requests because the old URLs would be kept as domain name and interwiki aliases.
e.g. [[yue:頭版]] and https://yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/頭版 already work, but they redirect to https://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/頭版 and the rename request simply reverses these redirects.

I believe the SPARQL part of (2) can also be handled by aliasing, though we need to work with the Wikidata developers to get SPARQL and interwiki linking to work.

jeblad added a subscriber: jeblad.Sep 18 2017, 1:01 PM

Slightly off-topic but the nowiki community would probably accept a move if old URLs will work for some time. I also believe that the community at both nowiki and nnwiki will accept an intercept of page requests for th no-domain a few years into the future, with a manual rerouting of the request to a nn- or nb-domain. The only thing they probably won't accept is broken URLs.

Nsaa added a comment.EditedSep 18 2017, 6:09 PM

@Liuxinyu970226 I'm only opposing renaming of the no.wikipedia.org to nb.wikipedia.org. What other project decides to do I have no strong opinion on.

Slightly of-topic: @jeblad claims " the nowiki community would probably accept a move if old URLs will work for some time. ". This subject has been up many times and no, there is no consensus of moving the project to another language code. (See the last round here https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avstemninger/Prefiks vote 85 to keep no versus 39 to move to nb).

Remember no.wikipedia.org covers the Norwegian language and since 2005* it has been covering two norms including some 90 % of the usage of Norwegian; bokmål as normed by Språkrådet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Council_of_Norway) and riksmål, the de facto standard most norwegians follow as normed by Det norske akademi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Academy_for_Language_and_Literature). We cover the Norwegian language at no.wikipedia.org, and in respect to the nn.wikipedia.org that left us in 2004 or something we do not write nynorsk.

The language situation in Norway is complex and has been a big fighting ground for 100 year. We have a stable situation on the project and it's pity that this has again come up as an issue. We should be writing articles and make no.wikipedia.org better, not handling unneccessary noise like this.

If someone will start a nb.wikipedia.org I suppose that is up to the Foundation to accept. But no.wikipedia.org stays at no.wikipedia.org (until eventually Foundation make a board case on it and force move us to nb. (since they are the owners of the domains)).

Remember there are a lot of reasons why we should not move:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Rename_no.wikipedia_to_nb.wikipedia#No_relocation_from_nowiki_to_nbwiki

Liuxinyu970226 added a subscriber: Mdennis-WMF.EditedSun, Oct 8, 12:33 AM

@Nsaa To answer your list of common aganist reasons, I worked hard on analysing ICANN, IETF, IEEE, ITU, ... resources in the past 8 days, and now (I removed your ref tags since those are shown U+FFFD characters on my browser):

'External links' – nowiki has established a great value of links that link to the page. At present it is up to 1.3 million such links. How will we get external stakeholders to update over 1,300,000 link to us with Yahoo containing no.wikipedia.org?

Maybe this would be a bug regarding SEO.

'Brand' no.wikipedia.org – NO domain coincides with the country code no, and that no has been in use since this wiki was created. Thus, it is advantageous to retain the familiar prefix no, that all Norwegian speakers have a relationship with, versus the totally unknown nb, who barely the most educated language people know.

Again, we use ISO 639, not ISO 3166, are we discussing the SAME ISO standard? "it is advantageous to retain the familiar prefix no" So again that nowikibooks, nowikinews, nowikisource, and potential nowikivoyage are bokmål only?

'Visibility' – All links from articles on no.wikipedia.org will no longer count as much for Google's PageRank algorithm (one can assume) if you do not 'permanent' add correctly redirectkoder the .com domain. The proposal allows for 'remove 301 redirect' after 5 years.
'Visibility and value' – 'Britannica boss' Jorge Cauze say the following on Wikipedia If I were to be the CEO of Google or the Founders of Google I would ask very [displeased] That the best search engine in the world continues two provideh as a first link, Wikipedia,

by those reasons, you're still opposing ALL Wiki-Setup (renaming) requests, and what's the reality of ".com"? How is that important?

'Index and traffic figures' . A switch will 'reduce the main page's importance' . At present, the traffic was 57 & nbsp; 694 hits, it amounts to 5.04 & nbsp;% of traffic on nowiki. Traffic on nnwikis index is pr. Day 1 & nbsp; 496 hits, it amounts to 1.37 & nbsp;% of traffic on nn. Sources: Source nn (archive nn 2009-01-26) source en (archive en 2009-01-26)

This looks rather like a bug (hence ask SEO) than a good argument

'Uncertainty' – Likewise, we have no control over what other search engines and others who follow links do with this kind of redirects and to what extent this has a negative effect.
'Uncertainty' – there is no agreement on what one possibly to do with .no domain afterwards, ergo it is inherent in a great danger that external links will no longer pointing directly to our articles and main compartment.

still, the macrolanguage problem, I believe Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian could also have such problems...

'Brand' – no domain is built up throughout the Norwegian speaking population consciousness as the site of Wikipedia in bokmål and riksmål.

Still, you still still and still not provided which articles are examples on the de facto nowiki which are writting in riksmål, only provided two enwiki articles that about orthography which are nonsense under reviewing resources criteria.

'Technical' – That it is technically a not insignificant job to implement (many bots must clean incredible amounts, one must set things up properly by developers on Wikipedia's servers – we'll use these scarce resources to such policy changes like this?).

I don't believe that you can't search what @Krenair said many times before, the only "hard" thing is renaming database names which is no longer a topic of this, but T83609

'Bias of bokmål / riksmål' – indirectly proposal an attempt to impartiality in distributing languages ​​printed on no (bokmål and riksmål), a language used mainly by the vast majority (In a survey with a sample of over 4,000 people came forward with the following "7.5 % responded that they write only nynorsk, 5.5% that they write about the same amount in both language variants, and 86.3% that they write riksmål / bokmål "oNLY 7 , 5% nyNorsk ( archived 2009-01-09 ). Bottom line then it's over 90% of the population of writing that uses bokmål / riksmål to put that in perspective). It will be quite discriminatory to destroy all the value created on no.domenet already at a relocation simply because a driver with semantic argument that also no-ISO code comprises the entire riksmål.

Now you claim that most nowiki articles can also be considered as riksmål, and bokmål is just riksmål, with those "resources".

'For all eternity .no domain is unusable for other purposes' – With a permanent relocation by. En:301 Redirect avoids possibly some of the problems with external links, but it will make no.wikipedia.org domain busy forever.

But if without renaming domain, the nb.wiki* can be permanently one of 404/405/504, how is 301 a big problem than those three? Just count the number of error codes here.

'ISO code no is more correct than nb for this wiki' – Officially Bokmål is normed by no:Språkrådet, while riksmål normed of no:Det Norske Akademi for Sprog og Litteratur. In ISO description of nb says bokmål and riksmål is not defined in this. no covers the Norwegian language and are therefore both national target and on Bokmål under no-ISO code, but not directly under nb-ISO code, at least not name terms. Thus riksmål and moderate bokmål (since this is not used by the Official Languages ​​Council sticks to radical forms) will be an immeasurably [ http://www.ordnett.no/ordbok.html?search=forfordele&search_type=&publications=23 (in meaning 1)] by moving from uk to nb.

By this claim, I could say that Persian is just Persian, not Dari, no dialects problems, btw an ask.com discussion (I missed the entire URL of it) says that in sometime, the "no" can also contain series of Sami languages, so if you'd love to keep no.wiki*, please include Sami just in those no.*, not creating those on Incubator, Okay?!

'Wikimedia should not not make a change, which entails serious consequences just to satisfy a small minority' – The move does not apply to equate two equal languages. We're not Wikipedia for Norway, but Wikipedia in Norwegian (bokmål, nynorsk, riksmål others). Here we are not official bias of language. 90% of the population uses bokmål/riksmål and then mainly the moderate form. Thus the argument that no recording a domain which should also cover nynorsk correct, but weak. There are many varieties of German, but they just follow the new orthography (not Low German, Swiss German, Austrian German etc.). I think I see that dewiki being accused of discriminating against them.

"not not" = just do it, and please be aware that Swiss German has dialects too, and alswiki contain 4 of em. It would be in case that eswiki will face-to-face dialects of es in many countries problems by the same claim (still, which dialect/orthography the Spanish-Sites are following?).

'Definition Power' – The impact of vertical search engines: The 'relative position' to nn will be improved (ergo choose people nn articles instead nb article to a greater extent). Thus acquires nn more of definition power (Is it called the no:Vedavågen or Veavågen mm)

still, the SEO bugs

(added after poll) 'External links on paper'. There is no one who knows how many (permanent) links that are currently operating pressure and after the proposed five-year period will no longer pointing to that content.
(added after poll) 'External links to papers. By a shift will no longer (permament) links be like. After five years they will probably not pointing to the correct content. This is unfortunate set in an academic perspective (hampers reference check).

copied from my T172035#3613648 above

regarding fix codes on paper materials, I would suggest to get help from some (mainly) Chinese-made stuffs "Correction Tapes (修正带)" or "Correction Fluid (涂改液)"

or just, as deryck said above, doesn't concern the vast majority of requests, because you can just re-print them after domain renaming, only waste a little of inks in ink cartridge/selenium in toner cartridge.

(added after poll, 2011-08-14) 'ownership' to no.wikipedia.org gained by everyone who has helped in no.wikipedia.org on the articles per currently exist. Each of the users has mixed his work into these articles and it will in practice mean that every one of all the user needs to be requested and accepting delivery of this landed right. Presumably, only a Board decision in Wikimedia Foundation that can move the project since it is they who own the domain formally.

@Mdennis-WMF is this really? there's holds up from WMF bords?

(added after poll, 2011-08-14) 'W3C' strongly recommend that you do 'NOT' modify URLs.

W3C also suggests to let browsers support Audio track selection, (likely Video-), MPED-4 ASP, H.265 (surveillance-controller?)... but how are those must be supported on nowadays market-of-browsers?
On the other hand, IETF RFC 1035 implied to suggest to rename that in a necessary period.

(added after poll, 2011-08-14) Adding riksmål under bokmål is very wrong when bokmål covers almost the entire Norwegian written language, even the many nynorsk forms. Riksmål has a unique hundred year history with many of the leading cultural porters of the Norwegian language. To illustrate how remote on Bokmål may be from riksmål we can take this example

You said many times that nowiki articles are riksmål but now you say the opposite to YOUR SELF, psst.

Please continue discussions about the merits of renaming particular
languages' / language groups' sites on their respective tasks. This thread
is about the issues blocking the actual act of renaming.

Liuxinyu970226 added a comment.EditedSun, Oct 8, 12:25 PM

Please continue discussions about the merits of renaming particular
languages' / language groups' sites on their respective tasks. This thread
is about the issues blocking the actual act of renaming.

Well, I'm just pointing some common advantages for renaming domains, nothing is specifically above.