Page MenuHomePhabricator

Images "don't exist" but still appear
Closed, InvalidPublic

Description

Author: MediaWiki

Description:
Viewing images works, but the Image tab appears as a redlink, and leads to an
edit page, stating that the page doesn't exist. Since I know the files exist,
since I just viewed its page, this is most definitely a bug in the system. The
URL I have provided is but one example; I have encountered this bug with every
image page I've visited recently.


Version: 1.9.x
Severity: normal
OS: Windows XP
Platform: PC
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golf_Range_02801r.JPG

Details

Reference
bz8222

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to Normal.Nov 21 2014, 9:28 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz8222.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport created this task.Dec 11 2006, 7:38 PM
aaron added a comment.Dec 11 2006, 8:40 PM

Does the page actually have an edit history? It seems the there were no local
edits. The image is being copied from Commons along with the revision text since
there is none here (hence the red edit link).

brion added a comment.Dec 11 2006, 8:51 PM

That's an image on Commons, with no local page data.

MediaWiki wrote:

Shouldn't it show up as an existing page anyway? It would make sense.

ayg wrote:

Then edits to it would have to carry over to the Commons, which would be
plausible after single-user login is implemented. That would be in the vein of
bug 1552. If there's not a bug for that request, this could be repurposed.
However, making it so that Commons pages really appear 100% as though they're in
the current wiki is really impossible: you can't sensibly make them appear that
way for the purposes of template/category inclusions, privileged actions like
deletions, etc. Or rather you could, but it would mean basically abolishing the
Commons as we know it and replacing it by making some uploads default to upload
to all wikis or something (after which they could be dealt with locally, local
uploaded blocks could be instated in the event of local rule-breaking, etc.).

Which might not be a bad idea. But I suspect that that's beyond the scope of
this proposal, not to mention the scope of the developers' interest at present.

Gilles moved this task from Untriaged to Done on the Multimedia board.Dec 4 2014, 10:52 AM