Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked files

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, please start new conversations at Wikipedia talk:Database reports.

Commons

I might be mistake, but I'm fairly sure that this report counts commons image links as red-linked files, for example, see this article, House of Stuart, according to Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked files/5, 5 of the images are apparently red-linked when they are actually on commons, although oddly not all images on that page are listed, yet are all on commons--Jac16888 ^Talk 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-running the report manually right now. Between the replag issues and the data now being about a month old, it's hard to tell what's what. The script definitely should be checking against Commons, but if you find a case where there's (still) a bug after the report updates, please let me know. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, fuck. The replag for S3 (which holds Commons' database) is really high. I thought it wouldn't affect this script because we hit S1, but apparently the replag applies to both.

mzmcbride@bert:~$ mysql -h sql-s1 commonswiki_p -e "SELECT max(rc_timestamp) FROM recentchanges;"
+-------------------+
| max(rc_timestamp) |
+-------------------+
| 20081230151855    | 
+-------------------+

So I just created 44 subpages full of images that have been uploaded since December 30, 2008 on Commons that the database thinks don't exist. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this report now accurate?

I mentioned this database report here when reporting a Commons delinker issue, but am not sure whether this database report is now fixed following the above comments. It looks like it is OK now, but if anyone is watching the page, could they confirm that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments above are 18 months old now. I should hope the report is fixed (as far as I know it is). This report does not run daily, though, so the information can be somewhat stale. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish between Commons and local files?

Is it possible to split the report to distinguish between Commons and local files? Local files will have a local deletion log, but Commons ones won't have a local log (unless the page already existed for some reason)? Maybe provide links to the Commons log and local log for convenience? Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it gets a bit tricky, doesn't it? Right now you have inline file usages that refer to a non-existent file. It checks both Commons and the local wiki before determining that the file is non-existent. Log links could be provided, but a file name "Foo.jpg" here might not be in any way relevant to the file name "Foo.jpg" on Commons. It might be possible to check deletion logs, though you'd undoubtedly run into cases where you'd have deletion logs on both Commons and here, which might lead to more confusion than it resolves. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I really want is a way to identify the files that Commons delinker failed to delink. See my comment here and the response here. It would make more sense for Commons delinker to output a file of articles it was unable to edit, but in the absence of that, is there any way to distinguish those redlinks on en-Wikipedia that are due to Commons deletions, from those due to local deletions? Some are, I see, due to people mis-spelling the name of the file they meant to type in, and these presumably would have no logs anywhere (whether upload logs or deletion logs). Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]