@Ryasmeen please let me know if you need any details of my setup to be able to reproduce this issue. I'm happy to assist however I can.

Understood, @bd808. I suggest keeping this issue open to track clarification of that UI so this confusion no longer happens for others. In the opening comment I suggested two ways that IMO could make the interface clearer.

In T223858#5208071, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

So should we close this then?

In T192967#5196778, @Jan_Dittrich wrote:

Great! Were there any overall findings that could help us in future designs? (For example, it seems that repeatedly, the UIs suggested to start with a property, but users wanted to start with an item.)

@Lydia_Pintscher agreed. The reason I wanted these tools to be live was to allow them to be experimented on, and allow identifying the good design choices and UX patterns, to help build the default builder. T223852 was about precisely identifying these tools and listing them in an accessible location, and T223853 was about doing some preliminary UX testing work (it can be reopened if there are plans to expand that work further — /cc @Charlie_WMDE).

PR #83 has been merged as well. I'll leave this open until @alaa_wmde voices his thoughts.

There was an attempt to revive the tool by:

The tool's code has been recovered with @Chicocvenancio's help, and put into a github repository at https://github.com/waldyrious/sparql-query-generator, to which @Jakob_WMDE has write access.

Also of note that @Bene's sparql tool, which used to be available at https://tools.wmflabs.org/bene/sparql/, was down; it was restored to a GitHub repository (see T223858), and is currently available at https://waldyrious.github.io/sparql-query-generator, and the new URL has been added to the list mentioned above.

This has been started with PR #82 (already merged), and PR #83 (currently open, at the time of writing).

Done. Various approaches were investigated and experimented with, and the simplest one was documented thoroughly, in a step-by-step guide, in Help:Toolforge/Auto-update a tool from GitHub. Links to the new guide were added to Help:Toolforge#Using Github or other external service and Help:Toolforge/How to, for discoverability.

This is now done. Updates were made to various help pages, including Portal:Toolforge, Help:Toolforge, Help:Getting Started, Help:Toolforge/Web, and others.

Done. The testing was conducted by @Charlie_WMDE, with me as subject and under the supervision of @Jakob_WMDE, and the results were reported to T192967#5194136.

Done. The collected information is now available at d:Wikidata:Tools/Query data, in a new dedicated section for query builders.

This is now done, with the merge of PR #60.

This is now done. The tool is now available at https://tools.wmflabs.org/primerpedia.

@bd808 understood, but what about the last suggestion in the task description?

During Wikimedia-Hackathon-2019 @Charlie_WMDE, @Jakob_WMDE and I conducted some user testing on some visual query building interfaces, and took some notes available below:

In T199816#4444683, @fgiunchedi wrote:

I've setup a very bare deprecation page for status.wikimedia.org, we can sunset the DNS name in some weeks time.

In T195756#4239426, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Indeed, we were thinking of having a special page called ""Special:DsiabledSpecialPage" in such cases but building that is outside of our scope for now.

Just for completeness, I'm copying the comment I added in T195754:

We don’t want any of those

FWIW, I use this quite often (manually), when the search results are too numerous and I'm looking for items with a specific name, since the intitle: operator doesn't work for Wikidata items.

Is there any way an error message could be shown to users to explain why Special:ItemDisambiguation is being redirected to Special:BlankPage? It's quite puzzling for someone who isn't aware of the current issues.

In T166272#3437125, @Jdlrobson wrote:

For those who want well formed HTML we will be providing a new service on RESTBase which will guarantee that (please follow along with T113094)

Can anyone comment on why the patch hasn't been merged? I can't see any outstanding review issues, but I may be missing something.

I've also been seeing this problem on Wikidata. Here's a screenshot of the issue, as an additional data point: