s inside the main body, but only close them inside the noinclude footer, don't you have a problem if that page ever gets transcluded? [14:29:48] foxlit: Yes, but in any transclusion they should be balanced out [14:30:32] An opening tag {{template/s}} will be blanced by a {{template/e}} on another page [14:30:40] Krenair: That may be ture [14:30:43] *true [14:31:11] in general, using people's user scripts or gadgets and expecting them to work is risky [14:31:14] but I'm finding many many LinterErrors in relation to Wikisource that are down to the parser not being designed for handling multi-page splits [14:31:32] copying them across wikis and using them on pages with different content models is unlikely to work properly [14:31:43] I'm tired of playing, "hunt the bodge" to get it working [14:32:25] Krenair: This was a script I was SPECIALLY recomended to use [14:32:26] that seems really fragile: the other page has no automatic way of telling how many start tags there were on the transcluded page, so if that ever changes, someone would have to manually go through all the transclusions [14:32:45] foxlit: That's how wikisource does it [14:32:47] (BADLY) [14:32:49] > using people's user scripts or gadgets and expecting them to work is risky --> Well, or at least go blame the user responsible for it and not MediaWiki :) [14:33:31] Vulpix: In viewing mode the tool works [14:33:37] ShakespeareFan00, by who? [14:33:47] doesn't make it MediaWiki's problem ShakespeareFan00 [14:33:54] Krenair: A user at Wikisource [14:34:08] Krenair: OKay sorry [14:34:29] had that user had success in using it on wikisource? [14:34:32] We've established that there seems to be something different in the analysis seen between EDIT and VIEW mode [14:34:37] Krenair: yes.. [14:34:48] you may wish to work with them to figure out the difference [14:34:53] but they were not using as complex formatting as I was [14:35:20] I'll leave a note for the tool maintainer? [14:35:36] that would be the most reasonable thing to do, yes [14:35:52] it's explained in the docs you linked: "On Page: source code editing the current main text (“body”) can be checked directly." [14:36:48] foxklit: It's not in EDIT mode checking the headers and footers it seems [14:37:01] (I.E It's stripping out the noinclude portion [14:37:02] ) [14:37:05] yes, that's exactly what that sentence says it does. [14:37:13] Ah.. [14:37:29] Now I know what to tell the tool maintainer... [14:37:31] :) [14:37:46] That on Wikisource, it needs an additional function [14:38:00] to consider the header/footer content [14:38:53] The use of noinclude in a single text field vs a proper seperation of headers/footers which would be possible if the DB schema was tweaked... [14:39:04] doesn't help [14:39:20] but that's a long rant, I've not been able to impress on developers [14:40:34] and would need the ProofreadPage extension to be rather extensively re-worked [14:41:21] Ideally the headers and footers should be using a pusedo tag, and not a [14:41:48] Does anyone here have a test wiki? [14:47:19] I had some thoughts on what Proofreadpage should be extended to do and wondered if they were as an interest [14:56:46] Krenair, Vulpix, foxlit: Apologies... [14:57:13] I shouldn't have been as conforntational [14:57:17] *confrontational [14:57:32] Having read the documentation for the tool, I think it needs an update [14:57:35] ShakespeareFan00, a test wiki with ProofreadPage installed? [14:57:39] Yep [14:57:46] yep we have https://en.wikisource.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page [14:57:57] Well... Ideally a 'modifed' version of Proofread Page [14:58:08] That splits the header/footer handlign differently [14:58:20] I'd need to find a dev to make the changes though [14:59:44] Okay [15:00:00] I'll have to write a phabricator ticket first though [15:00:09] The changes desired are fairly extensive [15:04:01] yeah [15:11:34] Krenair: In respect of the LintHint tool - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:PerfektesChaos#LIntHint..._Option_to_check_entire_source_code,_from_EDIT_form... [15:11:46] I'd appreciate some additional 2 cents from other users [15:12:04] The tool could be extended to look for other things [15:12:08] that's a very wikisource-centric way of wording it [15:13:05] Krenair: Mostly because that was the specfic use case I had in respect of what gets checked [15:13:47] If I was being more general , it would have been to ask from an option to strip noignore tags and check the entrity [15:13:54] of what was present [15:14:02] noinclude tags sorry [15:14:28] Actually, you've just suggested another feature Linthint needs [15:15:38] which is a "transclude" check [15:16:01] as I can think of a few pages (like templates) that render differently on transclusion [17:35:13] salve [17:35:26] ho bisogno d'aiuto [17:35:38] c'è qualcuno che può darmi una mano? [17:37:54] forse [18:00:45] FoxT: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment%2FExtension_management_feedback%2FFinding&type=revision&diff=2785245&oldid=2785183