the comment "To create a new user group that may edit interwiki data (bureaucrats can add users to this group)" speaks of 'bureaucrats' and the code example uses 'developers' which assignment form in the table is similar to upper case with 'sysop'. Then what are we speaking of ? the creation of new user group ? or the assignment with $wgGroupPermissions ? - please clarify. Thanks. --Christian 🇫🇷 FR 🚲 Paris 2024🗼 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Extension talk:Interwiki/Archive 2
I read that comment as showing how to create a new group ("developers") and assign interwiki editing permissions to it, ala Manual:User_rights#Creating_a_new_group_and_assigning_permissions_to_it. The comment is then parenthetically pointing out that bureaucrats can add individual users to your new group.
So the developer line with bureaucrats are meaningless here and can be removed since they bring no plus value to the previous sysop line. In fact any group could be used and sentence that bureaucrats can add users to a group - which remain true by itself - is out of scope here. Thus simplifying the presentation and going to the essential of $wgGroupPermissions. Any advice ? -- Christian 🇫🇷 FR 🚲 Paris 2024🗼 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Something like:
// To grant a group (e.g., the "sysop" group) permission to edit interwiki data $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['interwiki'] = true;
would perhaps be sufficient. Edit: change made.
pretty fine ! Thanks.
I have a procedure for "backporting" the contents (i.e. databases and uploaded files) of our production wikis to their dev copies. The wikis are in AWS using Aurora MySQL, so part of the procedure is to create snapshots of the four production database clusters and restoring them as new dev clusters. However, the iw_url values that link pages across the four wikis (EN, DE, FR, ES languages) contain the hostnames of the production wikis, so the dev wikis' interwiki links redirect to the production wikis. Would it be safe to simply run a SQL command to update the iw_url values in the dev wikis' databases, or might there be a better approach (other than manually logging in to each wiki to edit the Special:Interwiki pages manually)?
I've been editing the DBs directly for years, as you said, and it seems just fine.
The field to enter the URL on Special:Interwiki is an <input type="url">, and Firefox checks that such fields contain valid URLs before allowing form submission. The protocol-relative syntax starting with //is treated as invalid - rightly, since it's not a real URL - so you can't submit the form. (Unless you use inspect element to change the input type to "text", which is what I did).
I think probably what should be done is just change the markup so the input type is "text".
Protocol-relative URLs should not generally be used anyways - if a site supports HTTPS, links to it should exclusively be HTTPS, and otherwise links will need to be HTTP. Protocol-relative URLs were only used on WMF wikis as a stopgap interim measure when secure viewing was being rolled out to everyone by default.
That makes good sense, but if the feature is still to be supported at all then it's probably worth the trivial fix to the markup, and if it should never be used then perhaps it should just be removed.
Hi,
I have updated my multilanguage wiki website to current MW version:
| Product | Version |
|---|---|
| MediaWiki | 1.39.3 |
| PHP | 8.0.28 (cgi-fcgi) |
| MySQL | 5.7.34 |
And I interwiki links installed. What I have noticed that with MW 1.39.3 interwiki links disappeared and requires to install ULS extension to be shown. As this extension works not properly at my website and I never need this extension, is there a way to switch interwiki links without ULS extenaion. What strange is that only Vector-2022 skin requires ULS for interwiki. With other skins I do see all my language links. Please help.
The issue has been resolved at MW 1.40.0
When adding Interwiki, I get "Could not add prefix 'xxx' to Interwiki table. It may already exist in the interwiki table" and cannot be added. I checked and couldn't find an interwiki with the same name.
There must have been a transclude field in interwiki prefix table. Why is it still mentioned in :w:special:interwiki. Is this still anything good for?
So is Wikimedia using the central interwiki feature? And if so, then what is the central wiki? Is it Meta?
I think they are using Wikidata for this if I am not mistaken.
The interwiki list is still pulled from meta:Interwiki map, somehow. I don't know the details, though.
There are no older topics