From Uncyclomedia, the UnMeta-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forum: Uncyclodata
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2075 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Wikipedia recently acquired something called Wikidata. It is a common repository for interlanguage links, and it facilitates interlanguage linking because there is only one common list of links to edit for each set of articles rather than many lists for each individual article. It is far more convenient than the previous situation, as now there is much less work to be done; interwikis were mostly handled by robots anyway, but it is still an improvement.

I would like to see something similar implemented for the Uncyclomedia family. I propose that our repository for interlanguage links be called Uncyclodata, Undata or Unwikidata (though of course the name doesn't matter). I am suggesting this because a lot of interlanguage linking is done manually on our wikis - the bots aren't run that often apparently - and I for one have really got to hate sticking interlanguage links in what feels like every article I come across. All the time we spend adding interlanguage links could be diverted to more useful pursuits if we only had a common repository for the links. I am not saying interlanguage links are useless, just that it would be helpful if they could be made more convenient.

However, there is a problem with this idea: some of our wikis have forks, most notably English Uncyclopedia. I suggest that the common repository contain only those sides of forks that are more commonly linked to in interwiki tables and/or are more active, and that it be set up somehow so that no wiki could allow an interlanguage link to another wiki in the same language - thus avoiding commotions over 'we're directing viewers away'. Alternatively we could include all wikis, even multiple copies in the same language, in Uncyclodata, and allow individual wikis to decide which side of the fork they wanted to link to (as linking to both sides would be redundant and weird).

Does this sound at all viable? Feedback of any sort would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how I should do something like that. Neither do I have any sense how and why something like Wikidata should work here (even what it actually precisely is - a database of all interwiki links ever created to me), since I have no idea in general how something could work in an automatic way. Doing everything manually seems a hell of a job to me. No, I cannot say or suggest anything useful about this because it's unclear to me what it is, how it should be performed, and what to do with it. I guess waiting for someone whom does know more about it is the thing to be. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 15:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I will try to explain better what Wikidata is.
In Wikipedia pages, there is a little notice under the list of interlanguage links in the sidebar, saying 'edit interlanguage links'. When you click on it you are shown a popup window and you can add interlanguage links to that window; whatever you put there is actually being added to a page on Wikidata that contains links to all articles in different languages on the same topic.
For example, take the article Plethyn. If you go to it, you will see 'edit interlanguage links' under the one interlanguage link (Cymraeg) at the bottom of the toolbar. If you click on 'edit interlanguage links' you are taken to a popup showing you what links are already there, and you can edit it to contain more links. Any links you add or remove from there are then automatically added or removed from the other articles that are linked by means of Wikidata; in this case, the articles linked from the Wikidata page are en:Plethyn and cy:Plethyn. If you added, say, fr:Plethyn to the popup window, that link would appear in the toolbars of cy:Plethyn and en:Plethyn.
Alternatively you can go directly to the Wikidata page containing the list of links you want to edit, in our example q3916417. There is a table with all interlanguage links that are included in the toolbars of those articles; there are 'edit' links by the existing linked articles, and there is an 'add' link below where you can add a new interwiki that will automatically show up in all the articles linked from the Wikidata page.
Does that make sense? See also Wikipedia:Wikidata for more information. It should help you understand this better - there is also a Dutch version if you find that easier to read.
As to why I would like to see this go through on Uncyclomedia - same reasons for putting it through on Wikipedia. There would be far less work involved in maintaining interwiki links, as only one list would be maintained for each article. This would especially help the Uncyclomedia family since, from what I can see, the process of maintaining interwikis is far less automated, and far less looked after, than it was on Wikipedia prior to Wikidata - I don't know how many times I have added links to Welsh articles on other uncycs that existed for perhaps years without anyone being aware of their existence, and likewise I have added tons of interwikis to Welsh Uncyc that, if bots were being run, would have been there years ago. The interwiki bots just aren't run that often. If we are going to do this manually, we should have it be easier than it is now; if we aren't willing to create Uncyclodata, we should at least automate the interwiki process by having bots be run regularly to take care of interwiki maintaining. The current situation is totally unacceptable and out of hand. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
We have had some discussions about merging specific databases before. I believe Wikipedia makes these things possible, because they share userlists, domains, databases... We can't, because every Uncyclomedia wiki is a website on its own, including own seperate databases. Carl can provide a more technical explanation, I'm just recovering what has been said. Normally, robots like Hymie update these links regulary, but sometimes you have to put them in the 'classic' way | Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 01:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see. Well, anyway I don't have any idea how we could implement something like that here, as well what Cartoonist said, but remind as well that finding pages in other languages is a bit more difficult without help from all other languages because of the concept of Uncycs, where the users have the freedom to create completely different pages where no other language version available is, or pages with different names, but the same subject, but that is a bit less worrying because: redirects. I am afraid everything should be done manually for now, or someone else knows a way how to make something like this or to revive the Interwiki-bots. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 14:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You could give it a try to mail Carl and see what he has to suggest about it. Though, the Welsh Uncy is relatively small, about 80 pages, and could be done in a week to fill it up with interwiki's and so in nl:Oncyclopedia with a bit of help from Wikipedia. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 14:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
So Uncyclomedia wikis aren't interconnected enough that something similar to Wikidata could be made to work? I don't quite understand how that's true. It also shouldn't be too much of a problem if you can have multiple pages about the same subject: if you want all pages in the same language about a particular subject linked in the interwikis, you should be able to set it up so the common list can include all those pages; and if you don't want them all linked, then whatever.
I admit I also don't understand how interwiki bots work - how they find articles, that is. I'll let Carl know about this forum and ask him what he thinks. I'll also raise the question of running his bot so we don't have to add so many links by hand, though yes, the small number of pages on Celwyddoniadur does make it easier to do it by hand on that particular wiki. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, why all these Uncycs are not connected is easy to explain: as you probably could've seen at, a.k.a. "the Babel page", there are three camps, just to call them camps: UnMeta, Wikia and independent. In general, all Uncycs are hosted at one of those two "farms" (that's how the real name is) or hosted somewhere else (the indi's). The Welsh uncy, Portugese uncy and Dutch uncy, including this site, are being hosted by Carl (UnMeta), and the French, German, Italian etc. uncyc are hosted at Wikia. Wikia and Carl share almost nothing, besides the same concept. That makes it clear why something like a unitarian Uncyclodata would be very hard to accomplish, however, it could be more plausible to do this for all UnMeta-sites and maybe the indi's as well. Though, even when they would be hosted on one server, they all have different names (Uncyclopedia, Désencyclopedie, Nonciclopedia, Ikkepedia, Oncyclopedia etc.) and are not sites like,,, but,, etc.
Still, I am a n00b with bots or how they work, since I never worked with them and nevery actually looked up anything about bots (concerning how they funcion). Roye7777777 ~ Talk 23:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Taking the opportunity to intrude on the conversation

Read a bit throughout the text and conclude that also had some experience trying to put a interlink the Galician version of wikipedia (although not given at all) in an article that impressed me this new model. However I must admit that the constitution of each uncy is really a hurdle to adoption of this model as belonging to Wikia wikis do not allow connection interlink with uncys small or created after 2009, as the case of Desgalipedia or the Russian version, or even the very Uncyclopedia who left Wikia and chose an independent server.

From what I know of the fate of three wikis on Wikia their versions have not been good thing for Uncyclomedia: the Desgalipedia Wikia is abandoned and try to avoid the recreation although administrators Wikia think that someone can be redone by someone else. As for the other two versions remain active on Wikia and created this aberration terms each wiki having to decide who to follow.

Although the decision of Uncyclopedia to leave Wikia really had much repercussion, all other sites had to deal with this situation unreal. From what I hear the Inciclopedia can create code in MediaWiki that allows to have connections in both versions of Uncyclopedia and did the same code to adopt Desgali being possible to edit Desgalipedia's interlinks in Inci. On the other hand, I do not know how things are going in the other wikis.

I agree to a point that Carlb may believe to be possible to have a version that is not to cover versions family Uncyclomedia independent and wikis. However, we have to take into account other three points.

  1. Uncyclomedia also has versions of wikis that although belonging to family Uncyclomedia are hosted on our servers and wish that their case is also analyzed, as Illogicopedia and wikinet.
  2. A decision coming from UnMeta affect the interlinks between Desciclopédia, Desgalipedia and Çciclopédia. In the case of Brasilian uncyclopedia was consensus on a vote of users in eliminating the interlink gl: and mwl: and though the decision to do the same thing eventually reversed in Desgali while Çci has flouted by sheer laziness. Because of this, I have to take no decision remaining neutral to any vote.
  3. The third I believe to be the most serious is the situation of our servers, for it is well known that for a site that can be used for this purpose can not have so many errors that require other servers overloaded work.

And these gentlemen are my three cents on the subject. Rhubella selo-02.pngRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 3,139 preppieditsRhubella selo-01.png 14:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that WMF's Wikidata is still very much a work in progress. It currently provides inter-language links within Wikipedia, but doesn't handle other database-like entries (like the "see" and "do" listings in Wikivoyage), inter-language links within WP's sibling projects (although that's coming...) or interwiki links between WP and the same-language wiki for other WMF projects. That box on wp:Hell indicating "Wikivoyage offers a travel guide for wp:voy:Hell (Hades)" still has to be templated manually.
Wikidata might be a good source of data to import (for instance, if Wikipedia has en:Brazil fr:Brasil pt:Brasil as the same topic, the corresponding Uncyclopedia articles are likely also all related in subject matter *if they exist*) but I am very hesitant to run any sort of interwiki 'bot on any version of Uncyclopedia as the available interwiki links are not consistent across languages.
The mw:manual:pywikipediabot/ script presumes that if A links to B and B links to C, then all three can be linked to each other. That isn't true on Uncyclopedia if pt: voted to break all links to gl: (and gl: returned the favour), Wikia is deliberately broken and can't be fixed (missing some languages and pointing to semi-abandoned forks of en: and ru: instead of the active projects) and en: (when they first left Wikia) was a deliberately-broken mess with links to many smaller languages removed. A 'bot originally designed for Wikipedia (or some project where the interwiki table is consistent) will have problems here.
Hosting content on different servers would mean that outbound links from independents (ko: en: ru: stupidedia kamelopedia) would still need to be made the old-fashioned way, but the awkward detail that some language pairs can't be linked is problematic even between wikis on this server. I'm also very unsure how a 'bot would handle a project in which a Wikidata-style repository exists on some languages but not others - short of just ignoring it and using conventional interwiki links.
Illogicopedia has its own languages and its own inter-language links, independent of Uncyclopedia in any language. If anything, it exists for the sort of random text which would quickly fall victim to out-of-control deletionism on en: and a few other Uncyclopedias. In some cases, articles like illogicopedia:Colonel Sanders are rewrites of text which Uncyc would have simply deleted. Sibling project links may eventually be proposed for Wikidata (see Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Wikidata_migration) but I'm not sure if they make sense here as Illogicopedia, Wikinet, and the like are (by purpose) not actually part of Uncyclopedia. Carlb (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
All that is very true - I must point out though that both English Uncyclopedias are quite active, and it makes no more sense to link to one than the other. I don't know about Russian Uncyclopedia. I actually don't believe I've ever seen the non-wikia version of that one.
In that case, part of the solution would seem to be to convince all the uncyclopedias to quit removing links to each other and to put as many back as led to active or semi-active wikis, so that the interwiki bots could work correctly. I'd suggest keeping or re-adding any links to wikis that have their own domains (i.e. not Babel subpages) and at least 2 articles not counting the main page and redirects; do you think this is too low a standard? It allows for things like sco:, dlm: and ga: to have links to them.
I have actually been meaning to bother the English admins to add the interwiki shortcuts that are currently missing. Uncyclowikia does not have be: and ga:, something I found out when trying to link to my userpages on those wikis; the other English Uncyc, surprisingly, does.
About Illogicopedia, I suppose one could have a separate database for the Illogicomedia family (and other things that aren't quite part of Uncyclopedia), but that might be too much trouble... Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia's Wikidata has at least solved one problem: the interwikis were a complete mess, and now they are sort-of working. Maybe that's a good starting point (even doing a copy and paste of them...
BTW, Wikinet now has an Ukranian language interwiki! So there may be now three "families" of uncycs: the Uncyclopedias, the Illogicopedias and the Dramaticas. Cthulhu.fhtagn (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Establishing or retaining links from here to Wikia forks of projects which have moved (en: is now, ru: is now is very harmful as search engines penalise duplicate content instead of offering both versions to users. I'd therefore prefer not to host this kind of link as they serve to direct search engines away from the active, independent project in a manner which will jeopardise its success. Uncyclowikia is problematic in that there is no special:interwiki page available to administrators - only Wikia staff have access to create interwikis and they are clearly not willing to update these - so many recently-added languages will never be linkable from there.

Wikidata looks to be something that only works with multiple languages of the same project on a server. That leaves the problem of how to automatically create the links back from any of the independents. Making all wikis depend on one database server for this data defeats the whole purpose of their being independent. Carlb (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Uncyclowikia is problematic in that there is no special:interwiki page available to administrators - only Wikia staff have access to create interwikis and they are clearly not willing to update these - so many recently-added languages will never be linkable from there.

— User:Carlb
So I wonder. If Uncyclowikia can not create interlinks to Desgalipedia. So how was it possible that Inciclopedia that is on the same server allows this type of thing? And I know that this was the community's decision. Rhubella selo-02.pngRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 3,139 preppieditsRhubella selo-01.png 15:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering too: this interwiki to Oncyclopedia (by using [[nl:en:Main Page]], whilst Oncyclopedia makes en: link to .co) should redirect to as well... it cóuld be possible to sacrifise one language to it. Or maybe not... Roye7777777 ~ Talk 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Making it practical: check the interwiki bar on this page out! I am using the "Simple English" ([[simple:en:Main Page]]) one, which is actually redirecting to How about this? Roye7777777 ~ Talk 20:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Discovering Inciclopedia has got no :simple. Strange? Roye7777777 ~ Talk 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Wikidata is a great thaing and we have to do Uncyclodata any way.--Mongol (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A practical view

What's the problem? So what?
Inconsistency of interwikis caused by Wikia Uncyclodata should be used to collect interwikis only for wikis on Uncyclomedia (plus any indis that agree to participate). Interwikis to Wikia would be added to pages in the same way as now (manually), but interwikis via Uncyclodata will appear on pages automatically.
Connection to remote Uncyclodata database will slow down wikis, especially indis (which can be physically placed on the other side of the globe). The database is small! Say, we have 200 000 pages, and each of them exists in 25 languages (in reality numbers are much smaller). That gives 12.5 mln interwiki entries. Assuming each of them is (averagely) 50 bytes (in reality smaller), and multiplying by 2 just in case, we get ~ 1 Gb. of data (which is ~ 50 Mb. in compressed form, since this is all text with limited alphabet). This can simply be copied into indies - say, once per day. If copying fails for some reason, last received copy is used.
What if the local community of xx: doesn't want to link to yy:? (e.g. pt: & gl:) That one is simple. They (xx:) get the copy of DB (like indis do) and remove all undesired entries by one simple command (like 'DELETE * FROM uncyclodata_interwiki WHERE ui_prefix="gl"' for pt). This can be done automatically on each DB update (before the new DB substitutes the old DB).
We need a programmer to set this up right. Yes we do :)

Edward Chernenko (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Independency of projects

Carl and Edward made good points above, but I sincerly believe this is not going to work when on one side admins of project X reject the humour/content of a specific page on project Y. On the other side, project X still links to good pages on project Y. A common iw database would imply that quality control of each project will be more challenging, since projects will have to make compromises about humour. This is a great opportunity to strengthen the bonds within the Uncyclopedia family, however, it might lead to some embarrassment. I can think of a load of articles on the English Uncyclopedia that I do not consider as valuable. Those are articles that I do not wish to link on the Dutch or Norwegian uncyclopedias at all. This doesn't mean though that I want to "eradicate" all interwiki links to that project.

If you want Uncyclodata to work, all humour policies should, in fact, be assimilated or even equated. Or perhaps not. If every project is willing to give in - i.e. adding a line in the local humour policy that gives the permission for Uncyclodata's authority - there is nothing to be afraid about. I still prefer the integrity of each project, so before we proceed we should first ask every community seperately | Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 03:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I...don't know. Ideally, as I see it, no Uncyclopedia would totally reject another, and all of them would consider themselves part of the same family. They might have different rules and standards, but they could, I suppose, just tolerate the differences. I am not sure what to say about articles that one project will not link to because they consider them embarrassing. As I see it, rightly or not, that shouldn't happen; we should all agree, to some extent, on what sort of article should not be included, and then just not include them. But then you are right about the integrity of each project.
We seem to have different attitudes to low-quality articles on other projects. I link all articles on other projects from my wikis, regardless of how low- or high-quality they are. I'm not especially fond of en:Plaid Cymru, for example, but I have linked it from cy:Plaid Cymru because they are about the same topic, the English article links to the Welsh one, and it just strikes me as unfair not to have them link to each other.
The point raised above about having a specific command thing for local wikis not to link to would resolve these things, it sounds like.
Yes, we should certainly get all the communities to agree. Deciding something at UnMeta and then dropping it on the other wikis without asking them first is not the right way to do things. I am happy to try to take it up with the local communities; a lot of wikis in languages I don't speak would be included, however, so that might get complicated.
Yes, we will have to omit Wikia wikis from Uncyclodata. The situation with Wikia interlinks is just too tangled. I don't think we would even have the necessary technical abilities - Wikia staff controls the interwiki table, as has been pointed out earlier.
Thank you, everyone, for your input. I hope this can be made to work somehow. It sounds as if, with a bit of figuring, it could. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
(And then of course there are the inactive wikis, where the communities are 1-2 users or have up and left. We shouldn't need to get those to agree - should we? The Welsh community, in particular, consists entirely of me at the moment and does not need to be asked.) Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here. IMHO, linking to articles of worse quality via interwikis is OK. Why should we care? Edward Chernenko (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Situations and put the table
  1. Among the major uncyclopedias adoption of Uncydata should in my view presented their communities.
  2. Between the Wikia communities the question should not be presented keeping things as they are currently.
  3. There are some small communities who may have the same manager or alloy forming a coalition, the proposal can be studied by himself.
Exemple: Desgalipedia and Çciclopédia

Rhubella selo-02.pngRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 3,139 preppieditsRhubella selo-01.png 16:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Chernenko, I agree. I don't see the problem - I think it's only right to have all articles on the same topic linked to each other. The strange thing is that one wiki would make it entirely impossible to interwiki link to another, assuming the other wiki was still active and healthy and had the same purpose. There ought to be rules against that if you ask me. There was really no valid reason I can see to break interwikis to gl: (see: recent changes, statistics (no. of articles) for how active it is); if Uncyclodata is established I hope it will again be possible to link gl: from pt: - but then maybe it's not my business. (I can't read Portuguese very well, but I can just make out that gl: and mwl: violated some rules or other of pt:. Not sure why that's such an issue...)
Rhubella Marie, I'm not sure what you mean by the proposal can be studied by himself. I understand the rest of the sentence, but not your conclusion. Sorry. Could you explain?
As I said, I'm happy to start requests for comment about Uncyclodata in the active communities where I speak the language (en:, fr:). May I do this? For the other languages I would have to use Google Translate, so that wouldn't be a good idea. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I did well explains my analysis of the issue by three simple points in order (although very myopic) that the examples presented are the realities shared between Desgalipedia and Çciclopédia. Take into account that the three options that would be dictated by explaining better.
  1. The first point is elaborated to show the large communities of family Uncyclomedia the Uncydata project because so far I have not seen even one of these large user communities.
  2. The second point has already been said by (Llwy) yourself about the communities that are in Wikia
  3. The third point I mentioned that there uncyclopedias small controlled by a sysop that even a small wiki way one can follow the same standard that imposes another.

Rhubella selo-02.pngRhubella Marie, the rat sockpreppie 3,139 preppieditsRhubella selo-01.png 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A year later

  • Ping. I assume this has been forgotten? > 21:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)