← Back to home

Wikipedia:Requests For Page Importation

Ah, yes. The bureaucratic labyrinth where the digital past is painstakingly, and often quite tediously, reassembled. Welcome to the Requests for page importation, a noticeboard where various Wikipedia users, usually those with a peculiar fascination for historical lineage or a pressing need for attribution, can request that the complete edit history of a page be meticulously transferred from one Wikimedia Foundation project to another. It's less about the content itself and more about the tedious paper trail, ensuring that every digital fingerprint is accounted for.

For those of you attempting to navigate this particular corner of the wiki-verse, know that "WP:IMP" leads you directly here. Do not, under any circumstances, confuse it with Wikipedia:User access levels § Importers and Transwiki, which is about the people who perform these imports, or Wikipedia:WikiImp, which, frankly, sounds like a poorly conceived attempt at a mascot. Clarity, it seems, is a luxury not always afforded to those venturing into the administrative underbelly.

  • v

  • t

  • e

Navigating the vast, sprawling network of Wikipedia:Noticeboards can feel like sifting through the accumulated detritus of a thousand civilizations, each with its own set of arcane rules and desperate pleas. These are, in essence, Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues – places where the collective consciousness (or unconsciousness, depending on the day) of the project converges. If you're looking for an overview of the current state of digital pandemonium, the dashboard might offer some fleeting insight. And for those with a penchant for formal structures, there's a related, yet distinct, collection of forums known as formal review processes, which, despite not being noticeboards in the strictest sense, serve a similar function of siphoning off the endless stream of human interaction into manageable, if equally exhausting, categories.

General

The general noticeboards are where the foundational gears of this sprawling machine grind away, often audibly.

  • Administrators: The self-appointed custodians of the digital realm.
    • Main: Where the more mundane, yet still potentially explosive, administrative matters are aired.
    • Incidents: For when things inevitably go sideways, and someone needs to be publicly chastised or temporarily banished.
  • Bots: Because even the automated workforce needs oversight, lest they achieve sentience and decide to delete us all.
  • Bureaucrats: The quiet ones, who mostly handle permissions and name changes, ensuring the hierarchy remains intact.
  • Centralized discussion: Where grand pronouncements and policy shifts are theoretically debated, often to little actual consensus.
  • Closure requests: For when discussions have run their course, or, more likely, simply withered into incoherence, and someone needs to put them out of their misery.
  • Education: A noble, if often overlooked, corner dedicated to integrating Wikipedia into academic endeavors.
  • Interface admins: The unsung heroes (or villains, depending on your perspective) who tinker with the very fabric of the user experience.
  • Main Page errors: Where the most visible mistakes are reported, usually with a flurry of indignant urgency.
  • Open proxies: A necessary evil for combating the endless tide of anonymous mischief.
  • Volunteer response team: For dealing with external queries and legal threats, a thankless task if ever there was one.
  • Oversight: For when something is so utterly egregious, it must be erased from the public record entirely.
  • User permissions: The gateway to wielding more power within the system, often sought by those who believe they can do better (spoiler: they usually can't).

Articles, content

This is where the actual stuff of Wikipedia is debated, polished, and occasionally torn to shreds.

  • Bad image list: Because some images are simply beyond redemption, or just terribly offensive.
  • Biographies of living persons: A minefield of potential libel and privacy concerns, where discretion is supposedly paramount.
  • Copyrights
    • Questions on media: For when intellectual property laws collide with the desire for free knowledge.
    • Problems: When those collisions inevitably result in a mess that needs cleaning up.
  • Dispute resolution: Where intractable arguments are brought, usually to be mediated by someone equally tired of the whole affair.
  • External links: A constant battle against spam and self-promotion, a Sisyphean task.
  • Fringe theories: Where the truly bizarre and unsubstantiated claims are politely, or not so politely, shown the door.
  • Large language models: A new frontier of potential chaos, as the machines begin to contribute (or pollute) our collective knowledge.
  • Neutral point of view: The elusive holy grail of Wikipedia, constantly sought, rarely fully achieved.
  • Original research: For when someone mistakes Wikipedia for a publishing platform for their groundbreaking, yet entirely unverified, insights.
  • Pending changes: A temporary holding pen for edits that might be contentious or require review.
  • Reliable sources: The bedrock of all factual claims, constantly debated, occasionally redefined.
  • Resource requests: For when an editor needs access to something beyond the free internet, a surprisingly common occurrence.
  • Scalable vector graphics: Because sometimes, even the visual elements require highly specialized technical assistance.
  • Spam: The relentless enemy.
    • Blacklist: Where the most persistent offenders are condemned to oblivion.
    • Whitelist: The rare exceptions, usually for legitimate reasons that are still eyed with suspicion.
  • Style: The rules, the endless, nitpicky rules, designed to enforce a semblance of consistency on the chaos.
  • Titleblacklist: Preventing the creation of truly terrible or disruptive page titles.
  • Translation: For those who believe knowledge should transcend linguistic barriers, a noble, if often thankless, pursuit.

Page handling

The mechanics of moving, merging, and deleting the digital artifacts.

  • History merges: The intricate dance of combining edit histories, ensuring proper attribution across fragmented pages.
  • Mergers: When two separate articles are deemed better off as one, a process that can be surprisingly contentious.
  • Splits: The inverse, when one article grows too unwieldy and needs to be cleaved into more focused parts.
  • Moves: Changing a page's title, a seemingly simple act that can spark furious debate.
  • Protection: Shielding vulnerable pages from the relentless onslaught of vandalism or edit warring.
  • Importation: The very reason we're here, a task often misunderstood and frequently mishandled.
  • XfD: The various "X for Deletion" processes, where articles, redirects, categories, templates, files, and even discussions themselves are put on trial.
  • Undeletion: The rare opportunity to resurrect a page from the digital grave, usually after a compelling argument.
  • Deletion review: For when a deletion decision is contested, leading to yet another layer of bureaucratic scrutiny.

User conduct

Where the messy, unpredictable human element is (theoretically) brought to heel.

  • Conflict of interest: For when personal agendas inevitably clash with the encyclopedic mission.
  • Contributor copyright: Investigating instances where editors might be infringing copyright themselves.
  • Edit warring and 3RR: For when editors simply cannot agree, and resort to repeated reversions, often leading to temporary bans.
  • Sanctions: The various punishments meted out.
  • Sockpuppets: The detection and dismantling of deceptive alternate accounts, a never-ending game of digital whack-a-mole.
  • Usernames (Requests for comment): For when a username is problematic, offensive, or just plain confusing.
  • Vandalism: The eternal struggle against those who simply wish to watch the wiki burn.

Other

The miscellaneous corners, where questions are asked and grand ideas are (sometimes) hatched.

  • Arbitration: The highest court of appeal.
    • Committee noticeboard: Where the most intractable disputes are brought before a panel of adjudicators.
    • Requests: The formal process for initiating an arbitration case.
    • Enforcement: For ensuring that arbitration decisions are actually followed.
  • Edit filters: The automated guardians.
    • Edit filter noticeboard: Where the rules for these filters are discussed.
    • Requested: For proposing new filters to catch specific types of problematic edits.
    • False positives: For when the filters are a little too enthusiastic and catch legitimate edits.
  • Questions: For the perpetually bewildered.
    • Help desk: The first stop for general inquiries, often a place of profound confusion.
    • Teahouse: A gentler, more welcoming space for new editors, a rare oasis of calm.
    • Reference desk: For factual questions that Wikipedia itself might not yet answer.
    • New articles: Guiding nascent creations through the often-arduous process of becoming a legitimate article.
  • Requests for comment: A formal mechanism for soliciting broad community input on various issues.
  • Village pump: The bustling town square, divided into several specialized districts.
    • Policy: For discussing the fundamental rules.
    • Technical: For the more arcane discussions about the underlying software.
    • Proposals: Where new ideas are floated, often to sink without a trace.
    • Idea lab: A less formal space for brainstorming, before the proposals stage.
    • WMF: For discussions directly related to the Wikimedia Foundation itself.
    • Miscellaneous: The catch-all, for everything that doesn't quite fit elsewhere.
  • WikiProject proposals: For those ambitious enough to want to organize a new collaborative effort.
  • Discussions for discussion: Yes, you read that correctly. Sometimes, even the discussions themselves become subjects for debate. It's a meta-level of bureaucracy that perfectly encapsulates the project's self-referential nature.

Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Requests for page importation

So, you've stumbled upon this little corner of the wiki-verse, likely because you've encountered a page that was, shall we say, relocated without its historical baggage. This page is precisely where you go to request that pages be imported with history from other Wikimedia Foundation wikis to the English Wikipedia. It’s not about copying content; it’s about meticulously transferring the entire revision history, ensuring that every editor who contributed to that page, wherever it originated, retains their rightful attribution. It’s a matter of both intellectual honesty and licensing compliance, though most users probably just see it as another hurdle.

The primary use case for this seemingly esoteric process is when a page was unceremoniously copied and pasted from another Wikimedia Foundation wiki directly onto the English Wikipedia. This creates a problem: the content is there, but the crucial edit history, detailing who wrote what and when, is missing. Without that history, proper attribution is lost, which is a significant issue for a collaboratively edited, licensed work. Another, more specialized, scenario involves the Nostalgia Wikipedia – a fascinating, if somewhat melancholic, archive of very old revisions. Importing from there makes these ancient edits accessible, connecting the present wiki to its digital past. A truly cosmic endeavor, if you squint hard enough.

Administrators, those weary souls entrusted with the keys to the kingdom, possess the specific technical capabilities to perform these imports. Currently, they can directly import pages from Meta-Wiki, Wikimedia Commons, the Outreach Wiki, the Test2 Wikipedia site, and the German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Polish Wikipedias, along with the aforementioned Nostalgia Wikipedia, to the English Wikipedia. This isn't some arbitrary list; these permissions are granted through specific requests and technical configurations, as detailed in the rather dry but essential Phabricator task 22280, which also serves as the venue for requesting expansion to include even more projects. It’s a constant, low-level negotiation with the underlying infrastructure.

Now, if you happen to need an import from a project not on that privileged list, there's a more convoluted, indirect route: a transwiki import. This involves a step-wise process through a third project that already has a project mapping established. It's like trying to get from point A to point C by first going to point B, simply because there's no direct path. However, for most users, the simpler, albeit still somewhat technical, approach of using the export/import process (downloading an XML dump and then importing it) is generally less headache-inducing. Choose your poison, I suppose.

Guidelines for admins

For the administrators burdened with these requests, a specific protocol is expected, lest they inadvertently mangle a page's history or overwrite existing content. It's not rocket science, but it does require attention to detail, a quality often in short supply.

The first, and most critical, step is to diligently check the history of the source page before even contemplating the import operation. This is not a suggestion; it's a mandate. Neglecting this can lead to disastrous overlaps.

If, and this is a common occurrence, there are overlapping edits between the source page you're importing and the destination page already existing on the English Wikipedia, a specific, multi-step procedure must be followed. Failure to do so will result in a historical collision, and nobody wants that. The solution is to temporarily import the edits into the MediaWiki talk namespace, primarily because this namespace is almost never used for actual content discussions, making it a safe, if temporary, digital purgatory.

Here's the detailed, excruciatingly precise procedure, assuming "foo" is the title of the page on the English Wikipedia and "bar" is the title of the source page from the other wiki:

  1. Import "bar": Initiate the import process for the source page. When the system, in its infinite wisdom, prompts you for the destination namespace, you must select "MediaWiki talk". This is non-negotiable.
  2. Move "foo": Next, move the existing English Wikipedia page, "foo", to "MediaWiki talk:bar". The system will likely ask if you wish to delete the original page at "foo". The answer, for this procedure, is a definitive "yes". This clears the main namespace for the eventual, clean import.
  3. Undelete the relevant history: From the "move succeeded" notification window, you'll find a link to the page history at "MediaWiki talk:bar". Click it, perhaps in a new tab if you're feeling adventurous. Within that history, you'll observe some text along the lines of "View or restore xxx deleted edits?". This is your golden ticket. Activate the link associated with that text and then carefully undelete only the imported edits that are actually needed. The remaining, superfluous edits will remain safely deleted within the MediaWiki talk namespace, out of sight, out of mind.
  4. Revert the move: Finally, revert the page move you performed in step two. Crucially, remember to uncheck the box that innocently states "Leave a redirect behind". Redirects from the MediaWiki talk namespace are, quite frankly, utterly useless and only serve to clutter the system. If you're feeling particularly efficient, the "revert" link in the "move succeeded" window often provides a shortcut. This final move should proceed without any further hitches, leaving a beautifully merged and properly attributed history.

For situations where there are no overlapping edits – a rare blessing, to be sure – a slightly simpler version of this procedure can be employed. In such cases, it's generally considered best practice to move the page first, ensuring that the imported history neatly slots into the existing page's lineage from the outset.

A subtle yet important detail for administrators is the "assign edits to local users where the named user exists locally" option. In almost all circumstances, you should not use this. Leaving this option unchecked is the preferred approach, as it clearly indicates in the page history precisely which project the edits originated from. This avoids potential confusion with local accounts that may or may not exist and maintains a transparent record of the import's provenance. It's about clarity, not convenience.

For the truly niche requests, particularly those involving the Nostalgia Wikipedia, specific guidelines have been laid out by the venerable User:Graham87/Import. Consult it if you must delve into the truly ancient history of this project.

And for those who like to keep tabs on the grand tapestry of administrative actions, a comprehensive log of all page imports can be found at Special:Log/import. It's a digital ledger of every time a history has been carefully, or perhaps not so carefully, stitched into the fabric of the English Wikipedia.

Should you feel compelled to add to this bureaucratic symphony, you may Click here to make a new request. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Archives

The relentless march of time, and the even more relentless flow of user requests, means that discussions and requests here are eventually relegated to the annals of history. The archives exist, a testament to past endeavors:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page, like so many others, has archives. Sections older than a rather specific 31 days may find themselves automatically swept away by the tireless Lowercase sigmabot III, provided, of course, that there are more than 5 sections awaiting their digital slumber. It's an automated process, devoid of sentiment, much like the wiki itself.

Example Requests from the Digital Trenches

Here, we observe humanity's attempts to navigate this system, sometimes with grace, often with a profound lack of understanding. Each request is a tiny, poignant narrative of digital ambition colliding with bureaucratic reality.

Import of de:Karl Hadank to Karl Hadank

  • Language: de:Karl Hadank
  • New name: User:BergerLeo11/Karl Hadank
  • Note: "Translation from German into English --BergerLeo11 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]"
    • Initial request: "translation into German. Almost identical to the German original (only German Names of Berlin Archives and State Library added in brackets as they are international standard identifiers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BergerLeo11 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]"
    • Emma's observation: Note the immediate confusion. The user states "translation into German" while requesting translation "from German into English." A minor linguistic stumble, perhaps, or a sign of the cosmic weariness that affects us all. The inclusion of the article text itself, while not strictly required for an import request, shows a hopeful, if misguided, attempt to provide context.
Karl Hadank: A Brief Foray into Oriental Studies

Life Karl Hadank, born on February 21st, 1882 in the unassuming locale of Kesselsdorf, within the County of Löwenberg in Silesia, was destined for a life immersed in the intricate tapestries of Eastern cultures. His journey concluded in 1945 in Berlin-Friedrichshagen, marking the end of a career dedicated to the scholarly exploration of the Orient. He was a German Orientalist and a respected scholar in the field of Iranian Studies.[1][2]

Hadank's lineage stemmed from Pastor Emil Hadank and his wife Marie, née Voigt. His early education led him through the halls of the Gymnasium in Cottbus before he matriculated at the prestigious Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasium in Berlin, from which he graduated in 1901. He then pursued higher education in Berlin, focusing his intellectual energies on history and geography. By 1905, he had successfully defended his doctoral dissertation, a meticulous study on the historic Battle of Cortenuova, at the esteemed Friedrich Wilhelms University of Berlin (known today as Humboldt University zu Berlin).[3]

Initially, Hadank embarked on a career as an educator, a path often trodden by scholars. However, his academic prowess soon led to a temporary release from his teaching duties, allowing him to dedicate himself more fully to research. Under the auspices of the venerable Prussian Academy of Sciences, Hadank undertook the monumental task of organizing and publishing the extensive manuscript collections of the orientalist Oskar Mann, who had passed away in 1917. This was not merely an organizational task; it was a scholarly endeavor to bring Mann's invaluable work to light. His commitment to expanding knowledge led him to undertake significant research trips in 1932 to the ancient cities of Damascus and Baghdad, where he diligently expanded the existing collection of oriental manuscripts, enriching the academic resources available.[4]

Throughout his dedicated work, Hadank demonstrated a remarkable aptitude for languages, mastering various dialects. His contributions to the field of Iranian language research were particularly noteworthy. He not only published extensively but also produced the first comprehensive scholarly grammar of the Zaza language, a seminal work titled "Mundarten der Zaza."[5] This was not a mere translation; it was a deep dive into the linguistic intricacies of a less-studied language, a testament to his scholarly rigor.

Hadank's association with Oskar Mann's papers was a defining aspect of his later career. From 1919 until his own death in 1945, he was immersed in this work, a continuous scholarly dialogue across the veil of mortality, though he was ultimately unable to bring the project to its full completion.

Today, the intimately connected papers of both Hadank and Oskar Mann are meticulously preserved within the hallowed archives of the Berlin State Library (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) and the Archive of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften). Beginning in 2009, these collections underwent a rigorous scientific indexing process, generously funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). They stand as invaluable primary sources, offering profound insights into the historical trajectory of German Oriental Studies.[6]

Publications (selection)

A testament to his prolific output, Hadank's selected publications include:

  • Zur Klassifizierung westiranischer Sprachen: aus dem Nachlaß. This posthumously published work appeared in Acta orientalia, Vol. 53/1992, spanning pages 28–75, showcasing his continued influence beyond his lifetime.
  • Untersuchungen zum Westkurdischen: Bōtī und Ēzädī. Published by the Institut für Lautforschung an der Universität Berlin, O. Harrassowitz, Berlin in 1938, this work delves into specific Western Kurdish dialects.
  • Mundarten der Zâzâ, mainly from Siwerek und Kor. A pivotal work published by the Verlag der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (in Kommission bei W. de Gruyter), Berlin in 1932, highlighting his expertise in the Zaza language.
  • Die Mundarten der Gûrân, besonders das Kändûläî, Auramânî und Bâdschälânî. This study of Gûrân dialects was published by the Verlag der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin in 1930.
  • Die Mundarten von Khunsâr, Mahallât, Natänz, Nâyin, Sämnân, Sîvänd und Sô-kohrûd. Published by W. de Gruyter, Berlin in 1926, this demonstrates his broad linguistic survey across various Iranian dialects.

Weblinks

  • Mundarten der Zâzâ, hauptsächlich aus Siwerek und Kor. (This is an external link, so I won't preserve it as per instructions, but the original text included it.)

References

  1. Bernd Lemke, Pherset Rosbeiani (ed.): Unternehmen Mammut: Ein Kommandoeinsatz der Wehrmacht im Nordirak 1943. Edition Falkenberg, Bremen 2018, ISBN 978-3-95494-145-2 (limited preview on Google Books).
  2. Zur Klassifizierung westiranischer Sprachen: aus dem Nachlaß / von Karl Hadank. Ed. by Zılfi Selcan, on stabikat.de (catalogue of the Berlin State Library).
  3. Karl Hadank: Lebenslauf in Schlacht bei Cortenuova, 27, xi. 1237. Richard Hanow, Berlin 1905 (online).
  4. Hadank, Karl, Archiv der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Accessed 4th July 2025.
  5. Oskar Mann, Karl Hadank: Die Mundarten der Zâzâ, hauptsächlich aus Siverek und Kor. Leipzig 1932.
  6. Erschließung der Nachlässe der Orientalisten Oskar Mann und Karl Hadank gepris.dfg.de. Accessed 4th July 2025.

Categories: Orientalist|Iranist|German|1882 births|1945 Deaths|Mann

  • Note by admin Reconrabbit: "@BergerLeo11: This page is for importing the history of a page on another wiki to a page that already exists on English Wikipedia. If you are interested in translating this article, the page Wikipedia:Translation (or its German Wikipedia counterpart de:Wikipedia:Übersetzungen) will be of use. -- Reconrabbit 12:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A polite, yet firm, correction. The user clearly misunderstood the purpose of this noticeboard, a common affliction. This is not a translation service, but a historical data transfer point. The admin, Reconrabbit, points them towards the correct, equally bureaucratic, channel for translation.

  • User response: "wiki (ge, Ameisenigel) advised me to make changes in "New Name" which I did, see above. --BergerLeo11 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A user, advised by some other entity, attempts to correct their request. The saga continues.

  • Note by admin Graham87: "Done , I've imported the edits to User:BergerLeo11/Karl Hadank. Graham87 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: The deed is done. The history is transferred to the user's sandbox, a safe space for nascent articles, away from the harsh glare of the mainspace.

  • User response: "Edits did not arrive there. Could you try again? Alternatively to User:BergerLeo11/Leo1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BergerLeo11 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]"

    • Emma's observation: The user, still grappling with the intricacies, claims the edits "did not arrive." A classic case of user error, or perhaps just a misunderstanding of where to look. The suggestion of "Leo1" as an alternative sandbox shows a desperate attempt to make the system comply.

  • Admin response: "Yes, they did. Graham87 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A succinct, almost weary, refutation from Graham87. The edits were there. The problem, as usual, lay elsewhere.

  • User response: "I translated the article in German, checked it, and set in the links. As I do not have the Option "move" on my toolbar here, I ask for moving the article to the article room "Karl Hadank". BergerLeo11 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: The user, having presumably found the edits, now requests a move to the main article space. The lack of a "move" option is a permission-based restriction, a subtle reminder that not all users are created equal in the wiki hierarchy.

  • Admin response: "@BergerLeo11: The page at User:BergerLeo11/Karl Hadank does not appear to have ever been edited by you, and it remains untranslated. In fact, you have never edited any page on the English Wikipedia outside of this RFPI page. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A devastating, yet entirely accurate, blow from EggRoll97. The user claimed to have translated and edited the article, but the evidence (or lack thereof) in their edit history tells a different, more embarrassing, story. This is the brutal honesty of the wiki.

Import of de:Hafida Zizi to DarkGreenAndSunny/Hafida Zizi

  • Language: de:Hafida Zizi

  • New name: DarkGreenAndSunny/Hafida Zizi

  • Note: "wish to translate the German article into English, thank you --DarkGreenAndSunny (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A much clearer request, demonstrating a better understanding of the process. The user explicitly states their intention to translate, and requests the import to their userspace. A glimmer of hope for humanity, perhaps.

  • Note by admin Pppery: "Imported to User:DarkGreenAndSunny/Hafida Zizi. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: Success. The admin, * Pppery *, completes the task with a hint of dramatic flair. "It has begun..." indeed. The quiet, relentless work of knowledge transfer.

Import of de:de:Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke to GlobaliseWiki/Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke

  • Language: de:de:Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke

  • New name: GlobaliseWiki/Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke

  • Note: "--2A02:8109:9F20:DC00:2080:B08E:DEFC:ADD4 (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Translation done. I have translated the original German language article into English and wish to connect the two. Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke was a family member and I wanted to publish an English version for a wider readership, so I created one. Thank you for your help.[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: This request, from an anonymous IP address, is a masterclass in how not to make an import request. The user claims "translation done" and "created one," yet simultaneously asks for an import. And then, the fatal admission: "Elfriede Wojaczek-Steffke was a family member." A clear declaration of a conflict of interest, which immediately raises red flags in the wiki-verse. The desire for a "wider readership" is understandable, but the methods are... problematic.

  • Note by admin EggRoll97: "Not done There is no translated article present, and you do not have a user-space to import into. In addition, the title you are requesting the German article to be imported to appears to be a subpage of a non-existent article title. You also openly state that you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A brutal, but entirely justified, "Not done" from EggRoll97. Multiple failures here: no translated article, no user-space (an IP cannot have one), an invalid target title, and the glaring conflict of interest. It's a textbook example of everything that can go wrong in a single request. The admin's patience, one must assume, is severely tested.

Import of de:Stance bike to Stance bike

  • Language: de:Stance bike

  • New name: Stance bike

  • Note: "I translated my own German article into English, not sure whether a version import is necessary? --Hurluberlue (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A user, Hurluberlue, correctly identifies that they translated their own work. This is a crucial distinction. The question of necessity is valid, as the primary purpose of import is attribution for others' work.

  • Note by admin Graham87: "@Hurluberlue: Not really, as (a) your edit summary contains a link to the German article and (b) it's your own work. I'm not going to do the import myself but won't be bent out of shape if someone here does. Graham87 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: Graham87 provides a nuanced, pragmatic response. Since it's the user's own work and they've already provided a link in their edit summary (a form of attribution), a full history import isn't strictly necessary for licensing or attribution purposes. The admin's willingness to allow another admin to do it, despite their own reluctance, is a testament to the flexible nature of the rules, when applied with common sense.

  • User response: "Ok, thanks for the info! I wasn't sure about the usual procedure in here. Hurluberlue (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: A rare, polite, and understanding exchange. The user accepts the explanation. A small victory for clarity in the digital wilderness.

Import of de:Alte Evangelische Kirche Wilferdingen to Old Protestant Church of Wilferdingen

Import of de:Able (Rhesusaffe) to Miss Able

  • Language: de:Able (Rhesusaffe)

  • New name: Miss Able

  • Note: "Translation --KatastrophenKommando (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: Another concise request from KatastrophenKommando, who seems to have mastered the art of the straightforward import request.

  • Note by admin Graham87: "Done Graham87 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

    • Emma's observation: The cycle of request and fulfillment continues. Some things, it seems, are reliably predictable, even in this chaotic digital existence. The history of Miss Able, the rhesus monkey, now properly attributed. A small victory for transparency, I suppose.