Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VP(T))

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).

If you want to report a JavaScript error, please follow this guideline. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 5 days.

Redundant class-rating categories

[edit]

The latest run of Special:WantedCategories features a cluster of redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories that can't be created at the names they're appearing at, as they contain internal redundancies such as "Draft-Class Draft-Class" or "pages articles" or "X importance of X importance". These all relate specifically to Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, but as far as I can tell they're not being caused by that Wikiproject's banner itself, because their contents aren't pages but bluelinked class-rating subcategories that aren't similarly malformed, and those subcategories only have {{Quality and importance category}} on them rather than any template specific to that Wikiproject. But I can't figure out a plausible reason why that general, widely used template would be causing this nonsense only on Dungeons & Dragons-specific categories, as I can't see any code in that template that would specifically cause this on Dungeons & Dragons pages without breaking anything else — and that template, further, is even breaking the name of the Wikiproject to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Draft-Class Dungeons & Dragons pages of Mid-importance in its explicatory text.

So I need to ask if somebody can look into finding out where this error is coming from and how to fix it so that the redlinks go away. The implicated categories are:

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask future questions pertaining to assessment at Template talk:WikiProject banner. That is where the users who understand what is being done to banners know are. Izno (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is caused by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 19#Category:Redirect-Class 20th Century Studios articles of Low-importance. Cc HouseBlaster who closed it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Template:Quality and importance category definitely needs an update after the categories were moved. It seems that template is mainly used by the dungeons and dragons project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be  Fixed following "ugly hack to get around Lua pattters being terrible #125462947". HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-referencing: User testing

[edit]

Hi I’m Johannes from Wikimedia Deutschland's Technical Wishes team. We are making great strides with the new sub-referencing feature and we’d love to invite you to take part in two activities to help us move this work further:

  1. Try it out and share your feedback
    Please try the updated wikitext feature on the beta wiki and let us know what you think, either on our talk page or by booking a call with our UX researcher.
  2. Get a sneak peak and help shape the Visual Editor user designs
    Help us test the new design prototypes by participating in user sessions – sign up here to receive an invite. We're especially hoping to speak with people from underrepresented and diverse groups. If that's you, please consider signing up! No prior or extensive editing experience is required. User sessions will start May 14th.

We plan to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We’ll reach out to wikis for piloting in time for deployments. Creators and maintainers of reference-related tools and templates will be contacted beforehand as well.

Thank you very much for your support and encouragement so far in helping bring this feature to life! Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If only you hadn't decided that VE's shortcomings meant you had to change from the straightforward syntax people had hammered out over years of discussion to a previously rejected option that tries to shove wikitext into a tag parameter. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the previous approach of wrapping a subreference citation in <ref>...</ref> with a parameter identifying the main citation was much cleaner and more flexible. It also allowed for generating metadata. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! See meta:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing#Moving forward with sub-referencing for a detailed explanation why we chose the new syntax approach. In short: One of the main goals of sub-referencing was providing a MediaWiki solution for re-using references with different details which works for all users, no matter which editing interface they use. That's why we reached out to communities for feedback last year and decided to go with the new syntax. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there already, and you ignored me there too. I read your reasoning there as "VE has shortcomings and we don't want to fix it, so we're choosing a worse solution". Anomie⚔ 11:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for leaving your comment [1] without a reply, I was on leave until this week [2]. Please note that WMDE Technical Wishes is a small team dedicated to improve certain MediaWiki features. We do not have the resources to take on VisualEditor, that's what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing. We were faced with the option to stop our work on sub-referencing indefinitely – despite having worked on it for years – or continue with a different approach. Based on community feedback from different projects we decided to do the latter. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Anomie, but personally, I worry with a new feature like this that it will be deployed half-baked, as the Visual Editor and Vector 2022 and dark mode have been, and then the developers will move on to another project, even as volunteer editors dutifully report bugs in Phabricator. If the Wikimedia Foundation has a lot of resources and still lets the Visual Editor and Vector 2022 languish for years with unresolved bugs that make life difficult for editors who need to fix or work around problems, how is the WMDE going to address the inevitable bugs that are reported when editors get their hands on this new feature and start making a mess? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be a way to make it as user-friendly as {{sfn}} (which creates nice and readable wikitext) by suitable wrapper templates? And how would something like {{sfnm}} work with sub-references? —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sfn and sfnm would need to be provided the parent's name in addition to their current information, and the general references would need to be moved into a <references> or equivalent (at a minimum). At which point it is a serious question whether even to continue using sfn on any specific page. There is no template-use-wide promotion from one system to the other without bot or script or manual effort. Izno (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no way to make an intelligent version of {{sfn}}? The "parent" of {{sfn|Foo|Bar|2019|pp=3–5}} should obviously be CITEREFFooBar2019, which would need to be put somewhere as reference but that should not be necessary to specify again. I don't quite understand how {{sfnm}} could be emulated, though.
I can't personally see how the new system would be generally superior to use of our current sfn (but I can see that it would greatly improve the citation sections of German Wikipedia, where the use of citation templates is much less common than here). It will be just another citation style with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to make an intelligent version of sfn that is guaranteed to work into the arbitrary future, even if it potentially works now, based on statements already made by the parsing team. And based on how strip markers work, I am pretty sure it would not be something that could be used today.
sfnm would need a new additional syntax, 1ap=Parent_Name or similar, just the same as sfn.
I can't personally see how the new system would be generally superior to use of our current sfn There are two primary preferable factors.
  1. It would not rely on templates, making it much more suitable for large pages. Eventually, we may even be able to remove the IDs that the cite modules output, benefiting the largest pages (WP:PEIS would be reduced).
  2. It integrates well with the Cite display. References in the reference list will be listed in the context of their parent, rather than arbitrarily located. And also, there will be integration with reference popups, so that you can see both the child and parent reference at the same time.
I think the second factors are the pretty killer feature that doom sfn, but being able to decrease the output of our citation module would be another win. And would coincidentally fix the issue that a number of Wikipedians think is a non-issue with respect to ouptutting duplicate IDs on many pages. Izno (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually met WP:PEIS in articles yet, so I don't think it is a huge issue. And the code looks a bit messy so I am sure people will use suitable wrapper templates anyway. For the second point, the proposal replaces one arbitrary ordering (by the point where a specific reference including page number is first used in an article) by a different arbitrary ordering (by the point where a specific reference is first used, and these are then sorted by where the specific page number is first used). It is just a new and additional citation style. I don't think the features are "killer" enough to convince the people at FAC to make this the default in less than a decade or two. —Kusma (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the sidebar person template

[edit]

Per this discussion, is it possible to remove the signature and seal fields from Template:Sidebar person without causing errors in articles where it is transcluded? Thanks. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17 Of course it is possible from a technical perspective. However, I would certainly anticipate some talk page annoyance given the breadth with which this template is apparently used without a wider consensus gathering effort. Izno (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I'd considered that, but it's transcluded into 2800 pages. That's more than a few but far less than e.g. Template:Sidebar. If you can give me a blueprint for removing the fields myself, I'd be happy to take on the BRD burden. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox should be functional for this request. Izno (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Izno. Appreciate the work there! Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-18

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

  • Event organizers who host collaborative activities on multiple wikis, including Bengali, Japanese, and Korean Wikipedias, will have access to the CampaignEvents extension this week. Also, admins in the Wikipedia where the extension is enabled will automatically be granted the event organizer right soon. They won't have to manually grant themselves the right before they can manage events as requested by a community.
  • Recurrent item View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

  • The release of the next major version of Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, is scheduled for 29 April 2025. Technical editors will have access to the release by the week of 5 May 2025. This update will include a number of breaking changes and minor visual changes. Instructions on handling the breaking and visual changes are documented on this page. Pre-release testing is reported in T386298, with post-release issues tracked in T392379 and T392390.
  • Users of Wiki Replicas will notice that the database views of ipblocks, ipblocks_ipindex, and ipblocks_compat are now deprecated. Users can query the block and block_target new views that mirror the new tables in the production database instead. The deprecated views will be removed entirely from Wiki Replicas in June, 2025.
  • Recurrent item Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

Meetings and events

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can we help get the Score extension's vastly superior SVG output deployed?

[edit]

Hi, does anyone else actually

{\relative {g' a es}}

(care) about the Score extension? Sometimes it seems like I am operating in a vacuum. Progress on features has ground to a halt, and sadly it is being left to rot on the vine. There is a ticket for making it output vastly improved SVG instead of poor resolution raster PNG images T49578, which has been open for twelve years; I merged code for it two years ago, and it's ready to deploy. If you care about music notation on Mediawiki projects (WikiSource uses it a fair bit too), we need to get the "deploy new version into production" ticket T385404 progressed. What are we to do? How can we get this done? I don't want anyone to pile onto tickets and harass the engineers because they're busy and it's nobody's fault, but perhaps a show of hands as a few upvotes, polite words of encouragement or offers to help on the ticket? It's so frustrating to have it ready to go to just languish in limbo for years. — Jon (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a lot of that is the typical state of development. I'd suggest getting on wikitech IRC and asking the same or similar questions, and someone can maybe answer. Being a greasy wheel in the right places (and Phab is rarely the right place IMO) is the way to get things done, as in most of open source. Izno (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what they say: "The greasy wheel gets the squeak!" – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, IRC like it's the 1990s... ok I'll try. Jon (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TopicSubscriptions

[edit]

Looking at Special:TopicSubscriptions, if a section gets removed or archived the topicsubscription is not removed.

Is there a script that checks if these topics still exist, and unsubscribes if they do not?

Shouldn't that functionality be built in? I got like 600 topicsubscriptions. Polygnotus (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't, but that's not really a problem. There's no limit, the system should handle hundreds of thousands. Matma Rex talk 02:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And while I am here, how is it possible that Special:TopicSubscriptions keeps showing that I am subscribed to a topic when I already unsubscribed via the section header? Looking at the unsubscribe link on Special:TopicSubscriptions and comparing that with the unsubscribe link in the section header reveals the one on Special:TopicSubscriptions is:

/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=dtsubscribe&commentname=h-Srbernadette-20250428025800&section=Middleton+family

and the other is

/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=dtunsubscribe&commentname=h-Perception312-20250427143200

So it looks like I somehow got subscribed to a comment and not a section, How and why?

It means I can't just open a bunch of links from Special:TopicSubscriptions and then unsubscribe via the section header but have to check the page and then go back to Special:TopicSubscriptions to unsubscribe.

Does that mean there are actually 2 subscriptions, one to the section and one to the comment? That seems unlikely because when I unsubscribe from the comment via Special:TopicSubscriptions then I am no longer subscribed to the section when visiting the page (it shows [subscribe] not [unsubscribe]).

Shouldn't unsubscribing via a section header also unsubscribe from all comments within that section?

And ideally unwatching a page should unsubscribe from all sections (and therefore comments) on that talkpage (and perhaps watching a page should do the same because if you watch the entire page there is no need to also watch a specific section on that page).

Polygnotus (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

action=dtunsubscribe actually ignores the section parameter, I think we just overlooked the fact that we're passing it unnecessarily in one case. I sent a quick patch for that: [3].
So, the only difference is different commentname parameters. You can input them into Special:FindComment to find out more about what happened to these sections:
So it seems to me that these were actually two different discussions with the same section title (although you commented in both of them and subscribed to both). Matma Rex talk 02:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watching and subscribing are completely independent. From what I remember, we made them that way because we were being very cautious not to mess up anyone's established workflows with the watchlist when adding the new subscriptions feature, but alas this ends up being a bit awkward when you're using both features. Matma Rex talk 02:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matma Rex: pinging Matma Rex who is a certified genius. Polygnotus (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to my DiscussionTools work, let's go with mad genius… I tried to answer your questions inline. Matma Rex talk 02:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex Thank you! I have to think about this for a bit. I did notice there was no equivalent of Special:EditRecovery for DiscussionTools so now we have User:Polygnotus/Scripts/DiscussionToolsDrafts. Polygnotus (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Navbox §Improved readability

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Navbox §Improved readability. Whatback11 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Gill

[edit]

Reference 52 in Vince Gill has a template error in the archive-url section. This seems to be because of the original url having an asterisk in it. I can't for the life of me find a work around. Anyone got a suggestion? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest using this for the archive-url. It matches the archive-date and goes directly to the archived site. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The asterixed url is to an index page rather than an archived copy of the article. As @Firefangledfeathers says using one of the links listed on the page fixes the issue. Nthep (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page is in Tracking category, but I can't find the template that puts it there

[edit]

William Carter (bishop) is in Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2015, but I can't find any refimprove or more citations, or one source or any other templates used on the page. How did it get in that category? Newystats (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Carter family tree}} Izno (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newystats: You could have used Special:ExpandTemplates and searched for the category name. User:PrimeHunter/ExpandTemplates.js loads the current page in ExpandTemplates with a click. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Newystats (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Editor Font

[edit]

Hello! I am interested in changing the editor font to IBM Plex Mono but when I set it as the global font with * in common.css it doesn’t apply to the editor. Is it possible to change the font there? Macaw* 18:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try .mw-editfont-monospace instead of *. Matma Rex talk 20:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that didn't work it also dosn't change the font in areas like the preferences page; can you look at User:Macaw*/common.css and tell me if there is any issues or if it is just not possible. Thanks for all your help so far. Macaw* 02:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your code works for me. Are you sure that this is the correct font name, and that you have it installed? Matma Rex talk 08:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Macaw*: Possibly unrelated, but you have an @import rule at the bottom (to pull in meta:User:Aaron Liu/v22.css) - and such rules must be at the start of the style sheet, see CSS Cascading and Inheritance Level 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it works now. Thanks! Macaw* 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of citation templates

[edit]

Related to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#" The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged":

Can someone estimate what percentage of articles are using Wikipedia:Citation templates?

An ideal answer might sound something like "As of 2025, we estimate that 3% of the 6,989,476 mainspace articles are disambiguation pages, 1% are unsourced, 5% contain only general references or inline citations not using footnotes, 75% contain at least one ref tag with a detectable citation template, and 16% contain refs but no detectable citation template".

I've tried an estimate with hastemplate:cite_book in Special:Search and come up with about 5.3 million articles for the four basic citation templates (cite web/news/book/journal). This is probably a good enough estimate, but if there are better ways to find this, I'd be happy to have better numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the cs1|2 templates use Module:Citation/CS1, this link should give a close approximation of how may article use that module – at this writing 6.1 million-ish.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that count include only the article namespace or are drafts and userspace etc. included? —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All namespaces. For mainspace only, this search shows 5.5 million-ish articles.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's close enough. Does anyone remember offhand whether dab pages are included in the 6.98 million articles? (If not, then that's a bit more than 78% of articles; if so, then it's closer to 81%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are. (See also phab:T41913.) Izno (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That says 5–6% are dab pages. That means 83% of non-dab articles contain at least one citation template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: note that disambiguation pages can contain citations, even though it is unusual. This search finds 118 disambiguation pages with citations; including set index pages that rises to 13000. MKFI (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we actually had a rule against adding citations to dab pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, disambiguation pages with references would be considered as an error. Editors unfamiliar with WP:DDD may occasionally add references. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an article

[edit]

Rename the article Abu Hamza Al-Qurashi to Abu Hamza al-Qurashi and the article Abu Hudhayfah Al-Ansari to Abu Hudhayfah al-Ansari 2A00:20:C04A:CCC3:5D3:4383:385A:3EC3 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please request a rename at Requested Moves. Further advice may be sought at the Teahouse or Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is there an edit summary search tool that allows searching of all edits, not only those of a specific editor? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there isn't. And unfortunately, due to the way the Wikipedia database is,creating such a tool would be impossible for performance reasons. See my discussion with Cryptic about this sort of thing at Wikipedia:Request a query/Archive 2 § Searching for edit summary text over the revision table. The discussion is from 2021 and I'm by know means an expert here, but I'm pretty certain nothing has significantly changed since then ... (a) I can't find any evidence from places like the MediaWiki.org manual on the comment database table and (b) database schema changes are complicated and widely announced. The only reason the edit summary search tool works at all is that it searches by the contributor's name. Edit summarry searches on edits made within a particular time period up to a year (or in changes made in the last thirty days, that are in the recentchanges table) could be possible (if there aren't too many results) but may be very slow. Graham87 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image placement on article

[edit]

I am having difficulty with the placement of an image at Grand Prix de France (figure skating). When shown in preview mode, the image of the magazine cover is in the right place, but when published, the image appears at the bottom of the History section. What am I doing wrong, or can anyone help me out, please? Thank you so much for any assistance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: This is the many-floating-objects problem. The top edge of File:Skating Magazine Cover January 1989.jpg cannot be displayed any earlier than the top edge of File:Chock, Bates, Papadakis, Cizeron, Guignard, Fabbri - 2019 Internationaux de France - 2.jpg, which itself is constrained by the bottom edge of File:TEB2009 Pairs Podium.jpg; and so on up the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Okay, I got the image up to where it should be, but the text appears below the image and not next to it. Any suggestions? Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would question the need for four photos of gold, silver, and bronze medallists in the lead section - I would have used just one; either the most recent medallists, or those of the inaugural competition. I would then have put that photo into the infobox: {{Infobox recurring event}} provides |image= and |caption= parameters which may be used for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have arranged them into a gallery, which seems to solve the immediate problem, although I would prefer to have them down the right hand side of the article. (BTW, the reason for four photos is the four different events held at the competition.) I do appreciate your assistance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, if you want all four images in the lead, what I would do is: go back to the version as it was when you raised this thread. Then add {{stack begin}} immediately before the infobox, and add {{stack end}} immediately after the fourth image, before the start of the text. I have demonstrated this at the sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect; thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Something is broken with Template:Purple

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T393237

If you're seeing messages like 

[e58f25ca-7f21-4e6f-b057-1f2eda683533] 2025-05-03 15:21:42: Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Revision\RevisionAccessException"

at the moment, check if the page is transcluding Template:Purple. Other than editing the page to no longer transclude the template, I don't know of any fix for this until WMF people get a chance to look at it. I tried editing or deleting the template, but everything failed with the same exception. If Special:EditPage/Template:Purple starts working, that probably means they've fixed the problem. Anomie⚔ 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie Hm, that is weird, Nihiltres removes {{pp-template|small=yes}} and instead of storing the <text> properly it uses a selfclosing <text> with a hash that can't be found elsewhere in the export? Is there an oversighted revision or something? Polygnotus (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history is available, and the most recent version that doesn't throw an error is 17:52, 23 January 2009, which is editable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 If you do an export you can get the revision after that one too. But the weird thing is that it has a self-closing <text> and the SHA1 hash is not used previously as far as I can see (but I am not an oversighter/admin). Usually when it is a "new" revision that hasn't been stored before it stores the entire revision in <text> and if it is the same as an existing revision it uses the SHA1 hash to refer to it. Polygnotus (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phab ticket appears to show that database rows have been deleted, some of which where still in use. That might explain why the history no longer makes any sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can still run 'What links here'[6], most articles just display the error message. Any article that doesn't display the message will if you purge it, so it's only a matter of time before all those articles are broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Should we be temporarily removing the template, or waiting for a fix. Having articles like American English broken seems not very reader-friendly. Cremastra talk 19:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was transcluded into American English by a template of another article, as that article is fixed now and I can't see any related edit in the articles history. I would say to wait for the WMF to fix the issue, but that doesn't appear to be taking it's time. For some articles, Diego de Almagro for example, it requires a minor change and I'm not sure it's even truly necessary, others like Chinese classifier it's usage is complex and should probably be left for the fix. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without url-status live cite template defaults to archive first

[edit]

If you don't stick a |url-status= in a cite template then it defaults to the archive url; why? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: This was decided at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and should be discussed there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1288617507"