Benutzer Diskussion:THE IT/Archiv/2025

Diese Seite ist ein Archiv abgeschlossener Diskussionen. Ihr Inhalt sollte daher nicht mehr verändert werden. Benutze bitte die aktuelle Diskussionsseite. Um einen Abschnitt dieser Seite zu verlinken, klicke im Inhaltsverzeichnis auf den Abschnitt und kopiere dann Seitenname und Abschnittsüberschrift aus der URL-Zeile deines Browsers (Beispiel: [[Benutzer Diskussion:THE IT/Archiv/2025#Abschnittsüberschrift]]).

Gedichtbot

• regex für erste Zeile: <poem>.*?\n\n:?(^[ \w\.,!öÖäÄüÜß:]+?)\n[^\n] (Single Line, Multi Line)
• oder besser: regex poem ... jede Zeile ein String ... und der String 4 vor dem mit dem Regex {{Zeile|5}} ist dann wohl die erste Zeile

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 21:37, 13. Mai 2025 (CEST)

Fehlerhafte RE-Artikel

Hi THE IT, es gibt eine Hand voll Artikel in RE, die Fehler werfen.[1] Da du technisch versiert bist, dachte ich, du könntest mal danach schauen. Dank und Gruß, --Arnd 🇺🇦 20:05, 13. Mai 2025 (CEST) Danke fürs Bescheid sagen:Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 21:23, 13. Mai 2025 (CEST)

Frag den Bot

Hallo, THE IT. Zufällig bin auf die Seite Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/Wolfgang Fauth geraten. Ich bin der Meinung, „Simia“ gehört da nicht hin. Kannst du einmal Benutzer:THEbotIT fragen, wieso er/sie das anders sieht? --9xl (Diskussion) 12:51, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Das ist ja mal ein interessanter Fehler. THE IT (Diskussion) 14:28, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Stellt sich heraus, das hat Alles seine Richtigkeit Herr Fauth hat tatsächlich in Band S XIV einen Artikel über Simia geschrieben, die Register wussten das auch schon, wir haben es bloß noch nicht transkribiert. Lücken wird es solange geben, solange wir nicht sagen Fertig mit der Erstellung ;-) THE IT (Diskussion) 14:38, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Danke fürs aufdröseln. Es steht ja auch dahinter: Band S XIV Seite 679–701! Ich hätte nur dem Link folgen müssen. --9xl (Diskussion) 15:43, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 14:38, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Wikidata uppercase in Spanish description

Hello, it seems that your bot as started adding an uppercase in Spanish description, e.g. here. Could you change this? Thanks! --Jahl de Vautban (Diskussion) 11:43, 27. Apr. 2025 (CEST)

@VIGNERON: who is working on batches to remedy at this. --Jahl de Vautban (Diskussion) 11:46, 27. Apr. 2025 (CEST)

That’s kinda weird … the casing in the code was always uppercase. I don’t get why it was just starting to put it in uppercase. However I have just changed it to lowercase letters. Thanks for the message THE IT (Diskussion) 23:28, 27. Apr. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 22:54, 9. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Updates of new RE articles

Hi! Today I have transcribed my first RE articles (Benutzer:Epìdosis#RE Artikeln); I know that @THEbotIT: creates automatically their Wikidata items - does it also updates all the registers? Or should I update them manually? E.g. in some cases I noticed that in the registers the end page of the article is missing; does the bot take it from the RE article if I create it? Thanks in advance! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 23:52, 22. Jun. 2025 (CEST)

I'm sorry, another question: in {{REDaten}} wouldn't it be useful to add a field "Wikidata" to allow indicating the item about the subject of the article, as well as we have already "Wikipedia" and "Wikisource"? In the "Register" tables the column "Wikilinks" already allows to add not only Wikipedia, but also Wikidata. Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 11:26, 23. Jun. 2025 (CEST)

Hi Epìdosis,

I'm happy to see new articles appearing. To your first question, the bot also updates the register. Every edit you do in the registers will be overwritten. The truth of the registers are the entirety of all transcribed RE articles, though they are generated from them. For your second question. The place to add a link to the main topic of a RE article is Wikidata. The parameters Wikipedia and Wikisource are more a legacy thing. If you want to link to a Wikidata item you have to options.

1. add the link directly on wikidata with the property P921, look at other items to get a feeling how that looks
2. add a link to a wikipedia article (you can prefix with the language code de:...). The bot will reference the correct Wikidata item from there.

THE IT (Diskussion) 21:30, 23. Jun. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 22:53, 9. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

RE statistics

Hi! I have a few questions riguarding RE statistics (https://elexikon.ch/?Typ=RE&Text=RE-0_Stand.htm): will it be updated soon? and, most importantly, I was curious why there 74192 articles are indicated as transcribed, but in Wikidata this query only finds 54994 articles as of now - which is the reason of the difference? Thanks in advance, and I hope to continue transcriptions soon ... I am a bit busy travelling for Wikidata stuff ;-) Epìdosis (Diskussion) 22:48, 2. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

And another, more complex, question: as of now, I see that Wikidata items for RE entries are created in the moment in which the RE article is created in de.wikisource; and, as you said, the link between a RE entry and the Wikidata item about its subject is stored directly in Wikidata; so if the Wikidata item about a RE entry doesn't exist, it is not possible to store the link between it and the Wikidata item of its subject. Let me know if these premises are OK.

So, in the last months I have been contacted by at least two different research projects that have a strong interest for the mapping in Wikidata of RE articles and their subjects.

So, I was elaborating the following possibility: if, instead of waiting for the presence in de.wikisource of the transcription, we make now a massive creation in Wikidata of the items of all RE articles, starting from the registers, and then when the de.wikisource transcriptions are created the bot connects them to the preexisting items and fixes the preexisting items' metadata giving priority to de.wikisource, we could have one important advantage: we could start interlinking in Wikidata all RE articles with the Wikidata items of their subjects, and not only already-transcribed RE articles. What do you think of this? Do you see any major problems or obstacles? Thanks in advance and good night, Epìdosis (Diskussion) 23:14, 2. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Let's unpack this ;-):

Regarding the statistics ... this is done by @ELexikon: and I have no idea if he is planning to maintain this.

Your Query has a flaw. It just looks for articles I added here cross references to the mix. This brings you to 65962 ... which is the number we state on Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Where do you find 74192?

For the more complex question. Let me outline what the RE bot does. It cycles every night through a number of RE articles and works on different tasks (auto correcting format, dates, building the registers and keeping Wikidata up to date.). As you can see Wikidata is just one of the tasks done by the bot. The core value is that it works on the transcribed articles and takes them as the "truth". A common misconception is that the registers, which we once grabbed (I believe from some sort of excel sheet) are correct. They in fact aren't and the registers you find nowadays are the product of scraping the content of the transcribed articles. For example the original registers had no greek lemmas in them, this was added by us. This brings two problems

• You can't just blast the missing content from the registers to wikidata, because there are still numerous errors in the registers, which aren't transcribed up to this day.
• The bot doesn't work on a Wikidata first basis. It's reference point are the lemmas here in Wikisource. If a lemma doesn't has a Wikidata item the bot will create it, but the other way around isn't how the bot operates.

What I could imagine: Nobody says an articles has to be completely transcribed to be opened. We could start opening stubs (with the state "Unvollständig") and I could change the bot to include those in the scraping.

THE IT (Diskussion) 16:32, 3. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Hi! You are right for the statistics, and effectively the last update of https://elexikon.ch/?Typ=RE&Text=RE-0_Stand.htm coincides with the last activity date of @ELexikon:, i.e. October 2024.

And yes, I confirm 65962 RE articles in Wikidata including crossreferences; 74192 came from https://elexikon.ch/?Typ=RE&Text=RE-0_Stand.htm which maybe used a different calculation system based on registers (?).

For the longest point, the reconciliation of not-yet-transcribed RE articles with Wikidata items about their topics: yes, effectively I noticed some mistakes in the lines of the registers regarding not-yet-transcribed articles (especially missing end-pages), so importing them seems risky; the principle of taking the infobox of RE articles in de.wikisource as the reference point to construct Wikidata items and registers is a good guarantee of quality; so I consider your proposal of starting creating de.wikisource pages also for not-yet-transcribed articles, containing only the infobox, and then having the bot scraping them a very good one! I will also discuss this with colleagues coming from the research projects I mentioned.

I just add a final question: in the case of articles having Nachträge und Berichtigungen (e.g. RE:Agasias 2) do you confirm that presently only the first article is created in Wikidata, right? Thanks again! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 16:03, 4. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

I’m working on that problem currently. But yes at the moment only the first article is brought to wikidata. I could use input on what property to use for this. THE IT (Diskussion) 00:17, 5. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

@Epìdosis: I'm totally open for ideas regarding the data model here. My current idea is to create something like this. The property id is still a wip. But putting this on the item page of the main lemma seems like a good idea, as creating a separate item, which can't connect to the Wikisource page seems problematic to me. THE IT (Diskussion) 14:46, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Yes, for the data modeling of Nachträge und Berichtigungen we should think carefully about the data modeling and then act massively; d:Property:P2567 as used in your example seems a good option to me. I opened a discussion in Wikidata to gather more opinions, d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Antiquity/Pauly-Wissowa#Nachträge_und_Berichtigungen; I have just rediscovered d:Wikidata:WikiProject Antiquity/Pauly-Wissowa which I did not remember but could be very useful for this kind of data modeling discussions. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 22:26, 8. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

The RE statistics are up to date. ;-) ELexikon (Diskussion) 07:04, 14. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 22:53, 9. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

RE-Bearbeitungsstand bei "Platzhalter"

Hi THE IT, nach dieser Bot-Änderung wird als Bearbeitungsstand "unbekannt" ausgegeben, was zuvor nicht der Fall war. Ich nehme mal an, da muss der Bot noch dazulernen? VG Dorades (Diskussion) 21:09, 25. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Danke fürs finden! Wurde behoben. THE IT (Diskussion) 22:43, 9. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 22:43, 9. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Tippfehler in RE:Wartung:Tote Links nach Wikipedia

Hallo THE IT,

bei RE:Wartung:Tote Links nach Wikipedia ist mir aufgefallen, dass der Bot zwei Tippfehler macht: Wikpedia Artikel statt Wikipedia-Artikel. Es fehlen also ein i und ein Bindestrich.

Danke fürs Korrigieren und Lg

MFM (Diskussion) 20:54, 17. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Hab ich korrigiert, danke fürs Bescheid sagen.

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 00:25, 24. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Bot strange edits

Hi! I have reverted three edits of your bot in Wikidata since IMHO they removed correct statements (1, 2, 3); could you check? Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 13:34, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

I will check that ... paused the backlinking for the moment. THE IT (Diskussion) 15:44, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

And the answer is: All of these are cross references ... no d:Property:P1343 for cross references. Those point to another articel, which should have the same item as d:Property:P921 and that one will then backlinked (at some point). THE IT (Diskussion) 22:27, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

OK, I add another small question: in https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q125419191&diff=2396593113&oldid=2396348254 why didn't the bot add d:Property:P2567 (amended by)? Epìdosis (Diskussion) 16:55, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

At least that one is easy ... it was agreed, that the bot shall not add register entries as P2567. THE IT (Diskussion) 22:17, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

with that out of the way ... the I put the bot back to do its work. THE IT (Diskussion) 22:28, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 22:28, 26. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

WikiCite Bern 2025

Hi! I am among the users involved in defining the program of meta:WikiCite 2025; would you like to come in person to Bern to make a presentation about the RE project and especially how the metadata of the articles are managed in Wikidata? Wikimedia Switzerland would cover all the expenses (book the hotel directly and reimburse train tickets afterwards). If you can come in person, please let me know soon; if not, you can propose an online talk about the theme if you desire, using meta:WikiCite 2025/Proposals. Thanks in advance! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 20:17, 25. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

As I'm living in Bern and as I'm interested to take part at WikiCite in person I answer to this post.

I can act as a local guide and by the way I could speak about Paulys RE and some technical background.

What do you think @Epìdosis? ELexikon (Diskussion) 14:38, 26. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

@ELexikon:, it would be perfect, thanks very much! I think we can confirm the intervention about Paulys RE then. I ping @Alessandro Marchetti (WMCH): for the practical details; we will also contact you via e-mail. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 14:42, 26. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

I just checked ... travel costs for me would be around 400 Euros. Happy to travel for the Friday. If this is acceptable from the cost side I would attend as well. THE IT (Diskussion) 16:27, 26. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Hi, that's perfectly fine—you’re all welcome to attend, especially since one of you is based in Bern.

I’ll send a Wiki-email to both of you from my personal account. In the meantime, I’d kindly ask for a title for your presentation so I can finalize the programme layout. Something like "The Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft in German Wikisource and in Wikidata: an introduction and future perspectives", is this ok? Looking forward to hearing from you!--Alessandro Marchetti (WMCH) (Diskussion) 19:09, 26. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

@ELexikon, THE IT: of course we would be happy to have both of you, so that you can make a presentation together; no problem for the cost. Alessandro should have sent you an email with a few practical details; anyway, the two main things are: fill in this module with the details of when you will arrive and depart, so that WMCH can book the hotel (if needed; if you live in Bern, you can just specify that you don't need the hotel) and the lunches and dinners; you should prepare a small abstract to be added to meta:WikiCite 2025/Abstracts, in the next few days we will find the best place in the program to place your presentation. For any questions, write me or Alessandro here or via e-mail! --Epìdosis (Diskussion) 19:52, 26. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

@Epìdosis: I have the abstract for you on coming Monday or Tuesday. I'm away for the weekend and wasn't able so far to compile a good abstract. THE IT (Diskussion) 22:06, 30. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

No problem, no haste; when it is ready you can put it in meta:WikiCite 2025/Abstracts; I think before that moment @Alessandro Marchetti (WMCH): and I will also have decided the final schedule of your talk inside the program. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 22:08, 30. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

HI FYI I moved the abstract in the correct page, I tagged one of you in the edit summary. It was inserted in the Proposals page (I've clarified the instructions a bit more in the introduction section, maybe it was not clear enough). Well... THE IT and ELexikon since you know that page now, I leave you the suggestion to paste there the same (translated) abstract maybe also for the German speaking discussion hour on Sunday morning. I said so because I moticed that the title was patially in German (I changed a preposition) so you might be interested to invite your fellow users from dewikisource and dewikipedia to listen to your work also in the de-N slot from 10:00 to 11:00 amon August 31st if you are not on travel. Another fr-N user did the same with his presentation, it's acceptable. that is your personal choice, if you want to do so you can leave a dedicated proposal. All in German, including the abstract.--Alexmar983 (Diskussion) 09:43, 4. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

@THE IT, ELexikon: for your presentation in Bern, the slides template is https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1j8Di0d315cHKzqDFUxLbcOi3epmsEYJJ/edit (the second part since you are on Saturday), you should have received it also via e-mail. BTW, could you have a look at MediaWiki Diskussion:Edittools#Add other superscript numbers? Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 13:56, 21. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

P.S. If you want you can add something to meta:WikiClassics User Group/Reports/2024#German Wikisource (and Wikidata). Epìdosis (Diskussion) 23:13, 21. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Sounds very exciting, and thank you for doing this! I will try to be there online as well. --Tolanor 03:58, 23. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

@THE IT, ELexikon: as a small formality, could you write here that you agree about publishing the video of your presentation on Commons in CC BY-SA license? Thanks as always! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 13:04, 3. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Thank you - I agree. ELexikon (Diskussion) 15:48, 3. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

I also agree. THE IT (Diskussion) 16:58, 3. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 08:42, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

RE volumes

In Wikidata, the 69 volumes of RE (https://w.wiki/EsSe) are not uniform in their labels, descriptions and aliases in the various languages; what concerns me the most is that most labels include the prefix "Category:" (and equivalents), but this should not be included, since these items are "instance of": "volume", not of "Wikimedia category". For German, most labels are "Kategorie:RE:Band", some are "Pauly-Wissowa Band" and some are "RE:Band". I tend to think that a solution like "Pauly-Wissowa Band" (and equivalents of Band) would be the best label for the various languages. Do you agree? I can easily implement this through QS. Thanks, Epìdosis (Diskussion) 17:25, 28. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Thank you! Very ok for me. ELexikon (Diskussion) 10:22, 29. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Go for it ... I realized this as well briefly, while I was implementing the amended articles for WD. THE IT (Diskussion) 21:39, 30. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

OK perfect, labels in all languages fixed through https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/249089; now which standard do we prefer for descriptions? Most of them still refer in various ways to the concept of "category", which we want to eradicate. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 22:36, 30. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Sorry, I do not understand the question. What options do we have? ELexikon (Diskussion) 07:04, 1. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

So, the question is: which is the standard description that we would like to have, in the various languages, for RE volumes; as of now e.g. d:Q26414644 has (i) "Wikimedia–Kategorie: Pauly-Wissowa Halbband 1 (Aal–Alexandros)" in German, (ii) "Wikimedia category: RE volume I,1 (Aal–Alexandros)" in English, (iii) "categoria Wikimedia: RE tomo I,1 (Aal–Alexandros)" in Italian. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 12:31, 1. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

OK: please eradicate all references to "category". In fact I see at Q26414644 a) »Wikimedia–Kategorie: Pauly-Wissowa Halbband 1 (Aal–Alexandros)«, b) »RE I,1«, c) »RE:I,1«, d) »RE Band I,1«, e) »RE:Band I,1«, f) »Pauly Wissowa I,1«, g) »Pauly-Wissowa I,1«. Here I would prefer something with a minimum of abbreviations and no missleading ›:‹, for example Pauly-Wissowa RE Band I,1, 1893 (Aal–Alexandros), see Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft at the end. Accordingly we should update the Editionsrichtlinien. --ELexikon (Diskussion) 04:25, 4. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

@ELexikon: sorry, I was not pinged so I missed the message; so would you propose "Pauly-Wissowa RE Band I,1, 1893 (Aal–Alexandros)" as a model of German description, right? Epìdosis (Diskussion) 12:57, 21. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Yes @Epìdosis, this is correct. ELexikon (Diskussion) 19:17, 22. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

@ELexikon: I implemented a version "Pauly-Wissowa RE Band I,1, 1893 (Aal–Alexandros)" without the year for the reason that as of now unfortunately most of the items of the volumes lack the statement of the year of publication (d:Property:P577), as you can see from https://w.wiki/F6zo - once the statement is added, it will be easy to extract the year and add it to the descriptions. All the descriptions in other languages have also been cleaned. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 20:50, 22. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

OK ! Thank you. ELexikon (Diskussion) 06:07, 23. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 08:41, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Wiesu denn bluß?

Hi, die Änderungen Deines Bots von gestern in den Autorenregistern waren seltsam: [2], [[3] - er nimmt darin die sinnvollen Änderungen von vorher wieder zurück. Warum? Viele Grüße, --Tolanor 22:12, 12. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Da war ein Key abgelaufen und er konnte die Registerdaten nicht speichern. Das hat also leider zu Amnesie geführt. Das wird sich korrigieren. THE IT (Diskussion) 00:00, 13. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 08:41, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Registerfehler?

Hi, warum wird RE:Nisaia 2 im alphabetischen Register nicht erfasst? Viele Grüße, Tolanor 21:50, 29. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

wird es ... man muss leider immer etwas wieder hoch scrollen, weil die Positionierung des Ankers in der Mediawiki-Software etwas suboptimal ist. THE IT (Diskussion) 00:15, 30. Aug. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 08:41, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Bot dubious edits on Wikidata

Hi! The last edits performed on Wikidata by THEbotIT with edit summary "Remove old reference to a lexicon article" seem incorrect, e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q218451&diff=prev&oldid=2398608965 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q133853689&diff=prev&oldid=2399421754 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q16671807&diff=prev&oldid=2399437585 - these seem all valid P921 value to me ... I think the first mistake is on 27 August, this one https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12878271&diff=prev&oldid=2397053226. Could you check? Thanks as always! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 23:31, 4. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

all valid according to the discussion we had about this. The result of the discussion was back then, don't link back if the RE article is a mere cross reference, which all the first three are. The last one you have to see in the full context of the change: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12878271&diff=2397053226&oldid=2388179418 THE IT (Diskussion) 08:40, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

OK, should I rollback these edits or will the bot readd them eventually? For the last one, understood now. I have also started checking Kategorie:RE:Stammdaten überprüfen, thanks very much! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 22:54, 5. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

No the bot won’t add those back. I‘m pretty sure it was you who gave the input that if I have article A referencing article B, we would only want article B in P1343 of the item described. We can always reevaluate. THE IT (Diskussion) 00:29, 6. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

OK, rechecked, I understood the issue: all the removed links were links to cross-references (often they linked to the cross-reference because the article referenced in the cross-reference isn't yet in Wikidata). So no problem, the bot is working fine, and having gradually more RE articles in Wikidata also this issue will be gradually fixed. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 08:42, 6. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 10:01, 6. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Wikidata items missing

Hi! Sorry for disturbing again; I have just noticed that this night, whilst the bot created new Wikidata items for the new 100 RE articles it created, it skipped the about 50 RE article that it created yesterday and I revised (e.g. RE:Herakleides 25). Could you check? Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 08:36, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

No worries. The bot didn't skip anything. It just fell flat on his face (the long yibberish at the end means it encountered and error, where it couldn't recover from). Will try to fix this later today ... shouldn't take long. THE IT (Diskussion) 12:04, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

fixedTHE IT (Diskussion) 14:19, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Hi! Thanks for the fix. In fact I don't see yet for a Wikidata item for RE:Herakleides 25 and some other articles, but I guess this will be fixed at the next bot run. Good evening! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 19:03, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

I just had the time to fix it. Now most of the articles should be processed. And in doubt ... next bot run ;-). THE IT (Diskussion) 20:17, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 14:19, 7. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Edittools

When you have time, could you have a look at my little request in MediaWiki Diskussion:Edittools#Add other superscript numbers? Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 17:40, 11. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

I have answered your question there. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 17:41, 14. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 12:36, 18. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Georg Lippold's articles

Hi! A little strange thing that I notice looking at Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/VIII,2: why is the bot skipping, while creating new Platzhalter, the articles by Georg Lippold, since they are already in public domain? Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 09:26, 14. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Can't tell you exactly why at the moment. Maybe it isn't present in the templates or something else ... we will get it at some point. I wouldn't prioritize this too much ... other problems are more pressing, as giving you OCR's ;-). THE IT (Diskussion) 12:04, 14. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Maybe it is in the organisation of my list of all articles. I would have to analyze and test different hypothesis 》why《. If it has an effect on the result, this could be done. But the task is to do 30.000 articles. ELexikon (Diskussion) 15:24, 14. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Sure, not a big issue! I was just curious ... surely OCRs are more important, and Lippold's articles will be created eventually, either at the end of the public domain ones or during the "copyrighted" ones. Epìdosis (Diskussion) 17:40, 14. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

The articles are in the prepared Neuland… the bot apparently just don’t use them. So it’s an error on my side. Will look into it. THE IT (Diskussion) 09:28, 20. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

fixed Lippold should appear next night. THE IT (Diskussion) 09:45, 20. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Lippold created correctly this night, thanks for the fix. --Epìdosis (Diskussion) 11:24, 21. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 09:45, 20. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Wikidata - bot didn't run

Hi! Sorry to disturb (from meta:Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2025/Learning Day about to start) again, but I saw that THEbotIT did not run this night on Wikidata; could you have a look without haste? Thanks and have a nice day! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 06:46, 25. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

It was the literal missing comma. Very sorry. Mistake rectified. THE IT (Diskussion) 07:45, 25. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

The category should contain enough articles for today with Wikidata items. THE IT (Diskussion) 09:49, 25. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 09:49, 25. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

Jolles

Hi! There is something strange at Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/André Jolles: it hasn't been updated anymore in the last week, from the moment in which I changed its name. Could you have a look? Not urgent, of course. Thanks, Epìdosis (Diskussion) 10:28, 23. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

will have a look (eta 10 days)THE IT (Diskussion) 10:40, 23. Sep. 2025 (CEST)

You solved it on October 7. Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 11:36, 12. Okt. 2025 (CEST)

I have the same issue with Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/Conrad David Eberhard Lackeit and Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft/Register/Conrad Lackeit; I think the second should be kept and the first should be a redirect to it. Thanks! Epìdosis (Diskussion) 11:37, 17. Okt. 2025 (CEST)

Fixed here and deleted the longer title. Register will be updated soon with all Lemmas. THE IT (Diskussion) 16:32, 17. Okt. 2025 (CEST)

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 21:20, 1. Nov. 2025 (CET)

RE-Artikel ohne Bearbeitungsstand

Hallo THE IT, ich vermute, dein Bot hat bei einigen RE-Artikeln vergessen, einen Bearbeitungsstand anzugeben (RE:Hypnos, RE:Lykurgos 10). Viele Grüße, Dorades (Diskussion) 17:22, 8. Nov. 2025 (CET)

Hi Dorades,

Das hat alles seine Richtigkeit. Bis jetzt sind diese Artikel Platzhalter. Kein Mensch hat sich den Text bisher angeschaut. THE IT (Diskussion) 18:44, 8. Nov. 2025 (CET)

Sorry, aber OCR hinklatschen und das dann als Platzhalter zu bezeichnen geht nicht. Die Texte sollten als unkorrigiert gekennzeichnet werden. Wenn es unbedingt Platzhalter sein sollen, muss wenigstens der Inhaltstext auskommentiert werden. Was soll denn jemand denken, der zufällig auf RE:Lysanias 8 landet? --Dorades (Diskussion) 20:55, 8. Nov. 2025 (CET)

Wir werden da zukünftig noch ein Banner drüber schalten. Momentan sind wir noch in der Testphase für den Automatismus. THE IT (Diskussion) 21:48, 8. Nov. 2025 (CET)

Wenn ich mich einmischen darf: Ich stimme Dorades zu, dass wir die volle Bandbreite der Bearbeitungsstände nutzen sollten, die WS uns für genau diesen Zweck zur Verfügung stellt: unvollständig für gemeinfreie Artikel, wo der Text noch fehlt, unkorrigiert für Roh-OCR. Dann ist auch für außenstehende direkt ersichtlich, was Phase ist. Das wird m.E. auch überall sonst auf WS so gehandhabt; die RE sollte da nicht zu viel ihre eigenen Regeln aufstellen... Auch im Register fände ich einen Bearbeitungsstand unkorrigiert nicht verkehrt, dann kann man viel schneller sehen, wo etwas zu korrigieren ist. --Tolanor 02:12, 30. Dez. 2025 (CET)

ich verschiebe diese Diskussion mal auf die RE Diskussionsseite.

Archivierung dieses Abschnittes wurde gewünscht von: THE IT (Diskussion) 08:50, 30. Dez. 2025 (CET)