Help talk:Importing

To delete or not to delete
Should redirects in the Transwiki namespace be deleted or permanently kept? I think redirects should be deleted, however I decided not to add it to the proposed policy until its been discussed and some sort of consensus has been reached. --darklama 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the redirects should be deleted. I don't see a reason to keep around a million redirects that will never be used. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, don't delete. They do no harm, and provide an easy way to find transwikied files (through following redirects). I doubt there'd be a million of them, and since they're all "Transwiki:PAGENAME", they won't be getting in anyone's way. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be interesting to run some statistical comparisons on what kinds of files get transwiki'd and how they morph differently on the originating and hosting sites. But I wonder if somebody's hardrive somewhere would be bothered with, eventually, gazillions of files. I'd prefer to keep the data around, but then I am not much of a geek.&#91;&#91;User:Geof Bard गीता&#93;&#93; (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One would think this information could be reconstructed &mdash;more reliably&mdash; from Special:Log/import and Special:Log/move. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like this policy at all
There are a lot of "musts" and "needs" in this policy, with a strange overtone of "do it or be deleted". Part of why we should want to use import rather than c&p transwiki is so that administrators (who should be familiar with WIW, etc.) are doing the importing, so hopefully it's not going to be junk. Most of this is just w:WP:CREEP (I think we should import that, BTW).

The transwiki namespace should just be where we put transwikis when they're first brought across. Leave the transwiki namespace modules up as redirects so we can use a simple template on wikipedia to let people know where it went. Double-redirect shouldn't be a problem unless the page is moved multiple times (as they sometimes do), in which case it's even more useful to have the transwiki:name module redirecting to the current location, because otherwise every time a module is moved we're going to have to search through all the other wikiprojects and look for links. If it's not hurting anything, why delete it? Deletion is not a sport, and we shouldn't be trying to look for more opportunities to use the delete button.

If there's going to be a rule, it should be that copy-paste transwikis no longer be permitted unless there ends up being a massive backlog at Requests for Import (we need a shortcut for that). And even then, it's not a huge problem to import over a copy-paste transwiki: just delete the page as is, import, than restore the versions that were made on wikibooks.

The addition of this tool should mean less work, not more work. More clarity for GFDL and cross-project cooperation, not content grabbing and hiding. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can get rid of the CREEPness of this proposal, I have no objections. This is just a draft after all. The first version I created consisted of just a list of what I thought was considered an already established use of Transwiki. I was going for "this is what its used for", "this is why its needed" and "this is the transition that generally takes place", with a few reminders of established policies and guidelines thrown in just in case anyone reading this isn't famulor with related policies and guidelines.


 * I get your POV and it would be easier to change the Transwiki redirects here rather then trying to find all locations that use the template your talking about and update them each time a change is made. Is there any guanrentee though that for the other projects part that such pages would remain permanet as well? Once moved here, pages might very well be deleted or reused for contents that does belong. There is a limited amount that can be done to help users of other projects find what is being looked for here on other projects or other websites. Why not instead have some kind of guide or book here for people use to other projects to help them learn how things are organized here so they can find what is being looked for? --darklama 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with alot of what both of you have said (which is convenient, because I probably wouldn't have commented at all if i agreed). First off, There are alot of "must" and "need" as a necessity: people can't go about the transwiki process in any haphazard way. People must use the import tool, if possible. People must format the page appropriately, and use a proper naming convention. Second, the transwiki namespace is just a holding tank for imported pages until they can be properly moved into the main module namespace. There is a distinct possibility that pages in this holding tank might very well be junk, or that they might be worthless garbage that doesn't belong here anymore then it belongs on the original project. Third, the point about keeping around all the redirects in the transwiki namespace, while not a major objection of mine, seems pointless. If the transwiki namespace is just a holding tank for imported material--and if that material might be moved, merged, altered, or deleted at will--then it seems to me that there is no sense maintaining a redirect in that namespace. Also, what happens when we want to import two pages with the same name from two different projects? We can't maintain two separate redirects on the same transwiki page. Maintaining links so that wikipedians can find the garbage that they dont want anymore shouldn't be our responsibility, and it only serves to take up server resources (which are, admittedly, cheap). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I was referring to dealing with the "do it or be deleted" overstone that SB_Johnny is concerned with for my first point. Yes admins are the ones going to be using the import tool and are the only ones who can use it from what I understand so they should know whats approperate for Wikibooks, but No its not enough to ensure Transwiki namespace is used approperiatly, since Transwiki namespace is not restricted to admin use. Also admins are human and can and will make mistakes.


 * For my second point, Yes using templates on other projects referring to the Transwiki namespace here makes it easier here to maintain, but No I disagree that it makes sense, because it still depends on other projects just as much as links all over the place does. It still requires an assurance that other projects and websites maintain a means for users to find what they are looking for here on this project rather then providing the means here. I think its just a better bandade, but not a real solution to the problem. Proving the means here on this project for users to find moved contents, which seems to be what SB_Johnny wants, would remove the dependency on other projects and the need to maintain redirects in the Transwiki namespace, making it unnecessary to make the redirects permenant. I agree with you Whiteknight that maintaining redirects for reasons you've said doesn't make sense. The problem is exacerbated by the fact the same can happen on other projects as well, pages moved, merged, altered and deleted at will. Regardless of whether its Wikibooks responsibility or not to make it easier for users of other projects to find what they are looking for here, its certainly not other projects responsibility to do so, just as Wikibooks isn't responsibile for contents removed whether or not its contents is copied somewhere else more approperiate. --darklama 03:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the point is that it's less work for us not to delete them. And while the wikipedian "community at large" might have decided against including the material, the authors of the material obviously thought it was valuable (else they wouldn't have included it... you should take a look at the talk pages of these things where sometimes there are lengthy arguments about the importance of the materials), and perhaps might come to wikibooks and further improve their articles (now modules!)... assuming they can find them. Of course there will also be page moves and mergers on wikipedia and elsewhere, but that's not our concern, since the template will almost certainly move with it, and if it doesn't, well, that's not our problem. We can make a good-faith effort to ensure easy access to potential wikibooks contributors by simple not doing something, and when the easy way has advantages over the hard way, do it the easy way!
 * Interestingly though, another way they will be able to find them now will be to go through their own contributions (assuming we consistently use import, and make sure to merge page histories when we merge modules).
 * As far as importing the same named page from two different projects: it's probably unlikely. If it did happen, we could just delete whatever's there, and then create "soft redirects" to the two (or more) pages here. (Again, easy to do, because the admins are the ones doing the importing, and so also have the deletion tools).
 * "Why not instead have some kind of guide or book here for people use to other projects to help them learn how things are organized here so they can find what is being looked for?" -- absolutely :-). One good way to go about this would be to redo the welcome template: I started with a page in the WB namespace (Wikibooks for Wikipedians, which now has to be modified to include a discussion of the import tool/rules, and Local Manuals of Style, which points out that as far as wikibooks is concerned, wikipedia is just a really large wikibook with a rather complicated LMOS), I'll work on some more in my userspace (will link shortly). I rarely see the welcome template used here anyway, and it probably hasn't been updated in a long time.
 * "people can't go about the transwiki process in any haphazard way" -- well, if it were up to me, I'd set the bar of haphazardness rather low. For example, I don't see much problem with someone requesting import of a bunch of related articles (say, articles on woodworking and woodworking tools), organising them as book chapters, improving the structure and flow of them so that it becomes the skeleton of a book, and then tying it all together with detailed information about how to make things, safety protocols, etc.
 * The stuff in w:Category:Copy to Wikibooks on the other hand is about 1/2 and 1/2... I'm hoping they'll approve the use of a "no thanks" tag for the half that's useless. The other half is actually pretty good, so those materials can either be announced on the talk pages of books on related subjects, or else just cleaned up a bit and categorized as available stubs for incorporation into future books (we'll need some way to make these easy to find... another thing that should be included in the welcome template).
 * Off to play with the welcome template now :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There could be a minimal timeframe in which Transwiki redirects are kept such as a few weeks to give a good faith effort to try to easy migration of potential contributors of the work. Whatever timeframe is decided on could then be included in the template(s) used on the other projects along with a link to the guide or book I was suggesting. Something like "This article has been moved to Wikibooks and can be found ... temporarly for 4 weeks. If the page you seek is no longer there, you can read ... to find out how to find it again." --darklama 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh a suggested title for this suggested guide or book I've come up with is "Migration for Contribitors of other Wikimedia Projects" and could be included on the main page and other spots once its gotten useable. This guide or book could also include other useful information for users of other wikimedia projects too. --darklama 12:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can one of you guys just explain to me why just leaving the redirects is a problem? The fraction of a penny's worth of disk space? I really just don't get it. They're harmless (and therefore aren't worth the trouble of deleting), and potentially of use to someone, someday (and thus are worth keeping just in case). I really just don't see any reason for deleting them other than the "thrill of deletion" (joie de deletion?). -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been our current de facto policy here that redirects that are un-linked to, and for which there is little potential that they will be used in a search, should be deleted. I don't think it likely that anybody is going to search for "Transwiki:Gardening/Seeds". Like I said above, this isn't a big sticking point for me, and I would be willing to change the guideline to say that "we must keep the redirects forever at all costs" if that was the will of the community, but I dont see any particular need. I would probably be happiest with "Old transwiki redirects may be deleted, or they may not be." --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My view on redirects in general is that they should be deleted, because the more redirects there are with a similar name the more results you get from searching that may not be what your looking for. I don't think redirects are likely to be searched for specifically so they could just make it harder to find real contents in search results. This could result in having to goto the 10th page to find the results your looking for if the user doing the search hadn't gotten frustated and given up by then and decided what they need isn't here and goes elsewhere or creates duplicate contents. Redirects may be relatively cheap space-wise, but I think can become a burden bandwidth-wise in searching for example and in having contents being duplicated because a person thought the subject wasn't already covered. I would like to see the redirect rules for speedy deletion updated to not requiring ensuring that there not being linked to by other websites, since that shouldn't be Wikibook's problem either. I could understand keeping some redirects though, like common misspellings and synonyms, unless someone wants to use it for something else. I don't think Transwiki redirects should be given any special exceptions to existing rules. I think Wikibooks should try to avoid the potential problem of more redirects to actual pages ratio. --darklama 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (response below tab reset...)

reset tabs (I really don't like this policy at all)
Yeah, a neither-here-nor-there version would work. Maybe a template could be affixed to them (e.g. archival redirects from October 2006), that way when 6 months, a year, whatever goes by, we can change the template to add all of them to speedy deletion. (How's that for a fun proposal :-)?)

As far as the policy goes, "unlinked" is "unclear" in these cases, because the cross-wiki links won't come red if the destination disappears (there was a bug submitted about this on bugzilla, but apparently it would bring the servers to a grinding halt, and we've had enough problems with servers grinding to a halt, thank you very much). -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just don't want to be treated as auxiliary storage for wikipedia. When a page is imported to the transwiki space, and then moved to the main module space, it would probably just be a good idea to make a note of it on wikipedia, and tell them to update their links. Keep in mind that once a page is here, it could be divided up into multiple subpages, it could be merged into additional pages, (it could even be divided up, and the peices merged to multple pages), or it may be simply deleted on sight. A redirect that points to just one place (a place where the content may not actually be) seems worthless to me, or even worse then worthless: bad redirects will actually serve to confuse people. Keep in mind that pages that were written on wikipedia, but didn't quite fit the bill, do not necessarily make great textbook pages as-is. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's not like we're going out of our way to make things easier, just not going out of our way to make things difficult. Common courtesy to the contributors on the WP side.
 * Darklama: once "Transwiki:" becomes a namespace, those pages won't show up in a search unless you specifically set your preferences to search in that namespace (default search is main namespace only). For example, unless you changed your prefs, you wouldn't currently be able to find a cookbook article (or anything else in the cookbook namespace). -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, on that note, we might want to mention in the welcome message that people here to write in the cookbook need to change their preferences...) -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want redirects to be treated as essential and permanent textures used to keep links on other projects and websites working. There are problems with trying to do so. I wonder if the message seen on pages that don't exist could be changed here? I've noticed that other projects tend to use different messages. Could the message benifit from a change that includes a link to the suggested guide or book to help users find what they were expecting? I fixed references to "moving to main module space" yesterday or the day before, to instead refer to approperiate namespace since for instance in the case of recipies they belong in the Cookbook namespace rather then in the main namespace. --darklama 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thus far I've been importing recipes directly into the cookbook, so that's not really an issue. I still don't see the problems with doing so, since the search issue is a non-issue. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If your searching in the Transwiki namespace its an issue. Also if your using Special:Prefixindex/Transwiki: because you really want to help fix things up and move them, finding the redirects from the pages that haven't been moved yet may be difficult to determan. I also agree with the reasons Whiteknight gave. --darklama 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be a problem... you can just use Special:Logs/Import, start at the beginning, and help just keep on top of them. It's not just the ones in the TW namespace that will need cleaning up :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

reset tab 2

 * I'm interested in solving it before it becomes a future problem that becomes unmanagable by stomping it out while its still a bud. Since redirects show up all over the place. A person would need to check the logs of moves in addition to logs of imports to get an idea of what imported contents may have been taken care of already or not. Beyond checking Special:Redirects, redirects are indistinguishable from normal links. It would be nice if redirects were tagged with say their own css class so they could be made to stick out easily. --darklama 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it looks like guanaco has a bot for fixing double-redirects... hopefully he can just run it once a month or so and save us the trouble on that.
 * Part of my point was that whether something is sitting in the TW namespace may have little bearing on its current condition as far as cleanup is concerned. You're better off going through the import log and following whatever redirects there are to find the module's current location.
 * What I also want to do is create a template for the imports. This template would transclude 2 or 3 other templates (you would always subst it), such as ((dewikify)), ((rewrite in textbook manner)), ((find a home for this module)), etc. The transcluded templates could then be removed one by one as each task is completed. These templates would not be substituted, since they would also include categories (modules needing dewikification, modules needing textbookification, modules needing a home, etc.).
 * Um, hope that template thing makes sense :0. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Part of my point is that redirect links are indistinguishable so without first clicking on them you have no idea if its a redirect or not. So for someone trying to help, they would have to click the link before knowing if its a redirect or a page that needs fixing and moving. The more imports there are the more pages that a person has to click through to find pages needing work. I'm interested in fixing pages that rely on redirected links so redirected are no longer used and can be safely deleted or reused. There seems to be some relunency to delete them even though rules allow for it. Having all imported pages catagoriesed would relieve some of the problems of finding the right pages. Can you explain why you think redirects should be kept and how its not a problem? --darklama 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll explain (again) later. Most of the cleanup concerns should be addressed by the templates below (check out the categories for details). -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...but we might want to get moving
See A Wikimanual of Gardening/Seeds... pretty obvious that it's from wp, but no edit history, so it's copyvio. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's been taken care of, BTW... page was imported. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Images
I just realised that we can also import images, which could fix a lot of the transwiki problems (if the images from the article are on wikipedia rather than on commons, they redlink here). We might need to talk some more about the fair use thing too :/. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates
I made a bunch this morning, here's the scoop:

First, when transwikiing pages (and then moving them to the TW namespace, though hopefully not for long), add the following to the transwiki log:

WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME ~

...which makes:


 * WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME  imported &rarr; Transwiki:WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME SB_Johnny  | talk 10:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cookbook articles can be imported directly into the cookbook namespace, so use:

WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME ~

...which makes:


 * WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME  imported &rarr; Cookbook:WIKIPEDIAARTICLENAME SB_Johnny  | talk 11:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, on the page itself, add:

That adds 3 templates to the page: dewikify, bookify, and tw-adopt. Those templates contain categories for specific cleanup tasks, and can be removed as each task is complete. For an example of what this looks like, see Transwiki:Link rot.

The cookbook already has a template for this, so use cookwork rather than twwp-2.

Note that bookify refers to local manuals of style... I know most books don't have them yet, but the Cookbook and A Wikimanual of Gardening do. Still working on that with Swift.

I need to make another one for the cookbook... will post it here shortly. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like these templates, good job! I think it might be a little confusing to remember all of them, and how they are used, so perhaps you should write them into the text of this proposal (along with all the other changes that I know you are dying to make). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking at the Twwp-2 template, I must admit, I think the three templates included would be better off being only one that describes all three things, making all three templates obsolete. Something like a transwiki template with one optional argument for the name of the project the contents came from, which would say "from another project" instead of "from " if no argument is given. I also think the two twwp and twwp-c templates could be made into one with an optional argument being where its located if not in the Transwiki namespace. If you don't mind I will do both things. --darklama 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a draft of the first to show what I'm talking about User:Darklama/Transwiki. The idea is once we decide what the policy is to include a summary of that in one template and include a link to this policy once agreed to and adopted. --darklama 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whiteknight: all three templates are added automatically with Twwp-2, so that's all you need to remember.
 * Darklama: I like the idea of having them separate because you can break up the chore into 3 parts that way. Anyone can transwiki, for example (personally I find it a pleasantly zen-like chore), but you'd need a more experienced wikibookian to bookify and/or seat it in an existing book. What I'm hoping is that the talk pages of books can be used to announce them (i.e., someone familiar with what's here might know what book a TW belongs in, move it there, and announce it on the main talk page of the book). Adjusting it to the local MOS of the book in question might best be done by one of the principle authors, which will be a lot easier for them to do if someone's already dewikified it, categorized it, seated it in the TOC, etc. So no, I think combining the templates kinda defeats the purpose.
 * I'm pondering adding a link to our "dewikify" category from the "wikify" category page on wikipedia actually... the first few times I dewikified gave me a strange perverse pleasure, having wikified so many articles at wikipedia :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh BTW... wrote this offline at lunch today. I think we could do with a more detailed description and argument for dewikifying. SB_Johnny  | talk 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this policy should be about chores that needs to be done before moving out of the transwiki namespace as well as what gets placed into the Transwiki namespace. Then a template could be placed on them, that summerizes these chores and categorizes them for easy viewing. Once they leave the Transwiki namespace, I think there are already templates that exist that can be applied to them, so there should be no need to duplicate things. The section of the proposed policy about whats done after moving out of the Transwiki namespace, probably just needs to be a reminder of existing policies that apply. So we probably need to try to agree on what should or must be done before contents can be moved out of the transwiki namespace at a minimum. --darklama 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should be in the business of telling people what they have to do before adopting an article into a book. I don't think we should be in the business of telling people how their books should be written. I don't think we need to micromanage the contribution styles of our voluntary contributors.
 * This policy should be about what an admin is supposed to do when they transwiki something. It might also be a good idea to have some discussion about whether something should be imported when a request is made. But we don't need to boss people around and tell them that they must do it this way, in this order, or else... -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Imported contents may not always meet existing criterias strictly and part of the idea I had in mind with this policy was a guide for contributors moving contents from Transwiki namespace into a new or existing book. Not restrictly what admins need to do, though that can be covered as well. If copy-pasting contents is no longer allowed then contributors need to know that. When moving pages out of the Transwiki namespace contributors need to know what probably needs to be make the contents be ok here, since either it didn't belong on the project it was on or may not fit in as is and if contributors are coming from a different project they may not be aware of these differences. --darklama 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The order or how it gets done probably doesn't really mater. This is about what chores need to be done, so that admins aren't left having to do all the work, once imported. I'm not sure how things are currently done, the impression I get from what Whiteknight has said is that imported contents are generally more relaxed then usual so that in good faith contents have a chance to grow and flourish. I'm probably not explaining well what I am thinking. --darklama 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

reset tabs
Once the things are imported, they should just be treated like any other book or chapter: if they're not up to snuff, make them better. We don't need an imperative policy for that, we can just use templates and categories to attract attention to the weaknesses of the module. There's no need to make policy telling people what to do when a technical solution does the job just as well (if not better...the only imperitives involved here is that the admins must add the templates to things they import, which is pretty easy to do). If a new contributor comes along and is immediately told that they must do this or that, they won't be hanging around, period.

It doesn't matter if the chores are done in this order or that one. Three templates suggests three chores, which might end up being done by three users. Three steps instead of one invites contributors to just come by and help in a small way, without taking on a huge monster of a project all at once. Someone might come by and say "hey, I know a book that could use this material!" and move it to the book, without doing all the other things (he might not have time that day, ya know?), and that contribution is just as valuable as any other, because it's a contribution in good faith. Besides, what's the consequence? Do you propose that anyone who moves a transwiki to the main namespace without first dewikifying be blocked? If that were the rule, I'd be outta here lickity-split.

Wikibooks is staffed by volunteers. Small things matter, and small things are more likely to be accomplished if volunteers aren't obligated to do everything at once. Three templates, rather than one, lets someone just come on by and fix something small, and reward themselves by removing one of the ugly template messages. When they remove the template, they'll take the module out of the category. When it's out of the category (dewikify, for example), people interested in doing that particular chore (again, dewikifying, for example) will just perform it on another module that needs it.

"Ask not what wikibooks can do for you, but what you can do for wikibooks." Good slogan. Let's make them small things. If they want to do all three things, then they can have the extra-big pleasure of removing all three templates.

"This is what you must do if you want to be a wikibookian." Bad slogan. Not my kind of party, I think I'll go elsewhere. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm not proposing that anyone who doesn't dewikify it first be blocked. The only suggesting really I have is that contents be should be moved to a new or existing book before contributing heavly to it, so that Transwiki namespace doesn't become the contents permanent home, least it go unnoticed by all but a few people and stagnate, I'm suggesting it be made clear its about transitioning from the Transwiki namespace to a more permanent home, unless I'm compleatly wrong about the Transwiki namespace. --darklama 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that last point: The transwiki space is just a holding tank for material in transition, it is not a permanent home to the material. Pages in the transwiki namespace should not be edited really, except to move the content to a more appropriate location. Consider the analogy of a warehouse with a storage area (the main module namespace), and a loading dock (the transwiki namespace). We unload the trucks at the loading dock, but we open the boxes, take inventory, and store the boxes in the warehouse. Likewise, the transwiki space should only be used for holding page until a suitable home can be found.
 * That said, I think the argument over whether to include 3 cleanup-templates, or 1 cleanup template is irrelevant. The fact is that imported modules need to be made less like wikipedia articals and more like wikibooks modules. Also, once a page has been imported, it can be merged into an appropriate book long before it ever has to be reformatted to match the MOS or the LMOS.
 * Last, the transwiki namespace is a place for performing non-glamorous administrative tasks. People who don't know what they are doing, or why they are doing it, should not be monkeying around in those pages. I don't think that there is any reason why we shouldn't mandate a certain proceedure, although I will conceed that such a proceedure should probably be kept minimal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think giving information to help people so they know what needs to be done can go a long way twords turning someone whose doesn't know what it is they are doing or why they are doing it and are just monkeying around into an enlighten contributor who can help ease the burden of administrators by doing what needs to be done. --darklama 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the content/style/condition of the modules are really an administrative issue. One thing I hope we don't see (if I'm understanding correttly) is having links made from one transwiki page to another (i.e. actually building the book in that namespace).
 * I'm going to try thinning down the dewikify template though... it's too long, but not long enough. I'm trying to make the process of and reasons for dewikification on the Dewikify page, which might be suitable as a guideline. Bookify is a little trickier, and adopting is probably the trickiest of all, because it takes some work to get to know the style and flow of the book something is being placed into. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to suggest they are an administrative issue. The transition of Transwiki is a two stage process the administrative and contributor stages. I'm suggesting this policy or guideline, should cover both stages. I don't think there's probably a need to have a seperate policy on Dewikifing and Bookifing thats not already covered by some existing policy. The administrative stage consists of importing the pages and the contributor stage consists of doing any clean up chores and moving the page as part of a new or existing book, whether the clean up is done before or after the page is moved as part of a new or existing book, I think is what we might be disagreeing on whether there needs to be a specific order to it or not. I think SBJohnny is view is that it shouldn't mater and shouldn't try to dictate specific requirements and Whiteknight is willing to conceed having minimal requirements. I was going somewhere in the middle not quiet requirements or trying to specify a specific order, but inform contributors of tasks that will need to be done as a reminder of existing policies and guidelines. If admins are responsible for putting cleanup template(s) on the pages once imported that helps, but why not describe it in detail here?


 * We could have something like:

This transwikied page needs cleanup. see this page's discussion page for more information. --darklama 13:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

reset tab
I made some more adjustments to my template idea to reflect the direction I'm suggesting the three templates go in being combind. --darklama 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Put it to a vote before you start undoing anything I did. I've given the reasons for the 3 templates, sussinctly, and you haven't given any reason for not using it that way. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to undo anything unless its agreed to. As for the reasons:
 * 1 template is easier to remember then 3.
 * reply: it's all in one template: (go back and read above)
 * remembering to look in 1 category is easier then 3.
 * looking at 1 policy page for description of the cleanup chores is easier then 3.
 * reply: There's only one category to remember: Category:Transwiki-related cleanup (go back and read above)
 * 3 difference templates creates more work not less.
 * being able to provide a reason rather then a stocked reason, allows admins to say specifically what they think needs done. a default reason could still be provided though, so that a custom reason is optional, if you wish. right now by default it says "no reason given" if a reason isn't provided.
 * reply: Again, using three allows a user to take care of one task at a time, then "check things off" by removing the template. (go back and read above)


 * reply: How would "checking things off" differ having just one template then having three? They would have to edit twwp-2 to remove the other templates as things are done which would effect other pages using them as well. One template could provide the info needed with something like stages
 * Argh! twwp-2 is substituted. when it's added to the page (using subst), the only thing left there are the 3 templates, so they can be moved one by one. Add it to a sandbox and you'll see how subst: works. (better yet, add it once with subst, and once without). SB_Johnny | talk 14:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. I misunderstood how subst works then. I didn't realize that subst itself gets replaced. That takes care of how one would be able to check things off without having to edit twwp-2 itself. So I guess my only suggesting now is trying to make the three seperate templates more uniform so they are like a checklist in one box in which you just remove the individual parts and to make all 3 templates smaller. --darklama 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--darklama 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

reset tabs again
Yeah, it would be nice if we could find a "checkbox icon" or something for them. That's why I wanted to shrink down the dewikify template too, since it's just too big. I'll try to work some more on Dewikify later (please just wait for me to do it... I want to finish my thought there). SB_Johnny | talk 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good news. There is a checkbox icon already and an X too. I've seen them used on the talk pages of C++ Programming.



--darklama 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool... though is there one that has just a box looking like it needs to be checked? I had also thought of a broom and dustpan, etc... I think wikipedia has some icons along those lines that we could pilfer. SB_Johnny  | talk 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find one unchecked. I searched here, commons and wikipedia. Maybe you could modify this one and upload it?
 * [[Image:UI-Checkbox.png]] --darklama 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh BTW... if you want to do one of your magic tricks, make an account on wikipedia, make a sandbox, and use on the page (no subst:), and you'll see a very ineresting message that comes up. I have no idea how they do that, but you might be able to figure it out. :) -- SB_Johnny  | talk 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I figured it out without registering an account and giving it a try. It does some page name comparecent with and without subst being used and displays a little error box if you didn't use subst. Is that what you want to do with those templates here? --darklama 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmm, maybe I'm thinking of a different tag. the one I'm thinking of says in really large, red letters that you should have used the subst: (definitely gets the message across!). It might be handy for a template like this where not substing can cause problems. BTW, did you see the wacky AfD process there (with the 3 templates)? They recently changed them to do a "preloaded debate", which is neat. I don't do a lot of AfD nominations there, so haven't done it in a while. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The red letter ones was the one I was talking about. No I didn't see the AfD process there with the 3 templates. I saw mention of "preloaded debate", but have no idea what it means. --darklama 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be working well
Swing Dancing seems to be a good test case... the user who asked for the imports had apparently been the primary author on wikipedia, and then ran afoul of the how-to patrollers on wp. Since the new copy-to-wikibooks template (on wp) now links to our WB:RFI, he knew to list all the pages there. Now he's here (and busy!)... a new wikibookian and a new book.

The three template thing seems to be intuitive as well, as he's been removing them one by one as he does each step :).

If anyone hasn't voted for the bug on bugzilla, please do so... moving the thing to transwiki and then going back and deleting the original actually takes more time than the actual importing :/. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, do you have the link to the bugzilla request? I dont know where it was put last. Also, I like the 3 template thing as well. It might look a little ugly on the page ((wikify is awfully verbose), but it is highly functional. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The link on the bugzilla request is http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7613 the last post there (after Robert chimed in...thanks Robert!) implied that it will be enabled soon, but an extra vote can't hurt :).
 * I'm going to shorten the dewikify template right now... linking to Dewikify. I've finished my thoughts on that page, if I missed anything, let me know (though please please please don't even mention that we have policies about it, because (a) we don't, and (b) I'd rather keep it as an explanation of why it's done rather than a "you must do this"). -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed now (modified all 3 actually, using the green checkmark and centering the text. See Swing_Dancing/Jazz_dance_moves for how it looks. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

which comes first?
The last step is working on it, then moving to the mainspace. Can't we move first, then work on it? Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 12:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that when you've been here a while, you don't always bother to look back at the pages that originally defined how things work. Looking at this page and based on my actual experience, I'd say that those final two steps are not always in that order.  If it's a standalone page requested with no destination specified, it will usually be left in the transwiki namespace and worked on there, but if the requester specifies a destination, the person importing will move it to that location first before the requester begins work. – Adrignola talk 15:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on importing (Priority:LOW)
What is the difference between attribution only and full history ? It seems that there is a trade off between conciseness and legal compliance which in some cases would suggest that attribution may be more useful, and in others a detailed history of edits would be advantageous. For instance, potentially controversial...Also, wonder if there is a way in which admins can flag an import request as approved, but, in view of that they are busy, the import could then be implemented by anyone with importer privileges on their account? I have no problem being helpful to people who have devoted some of their valuable time to help me, answer my questions or fix my bloopers, but I would not take it upon myself to deign to approve or disapprove RfI.