Reported here. Media namespace is an alias for File and can't be edited.
Description
Description
Details
Details
| Subject | Repo | Branch | Lines +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove Media namespace from the list of RCFilters | mediawiki/core | master | +6 -1 |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
It's not even really an alias. It's a special way to link to the raw file, not a namespace. It can be removed.
Comment Actions
Change 387784 had a related patch set uploaded (by Petar.petkovic; owner: Petar.petkovic):
[mediawiki/core@master] Remove Media namespace from the list of RCFilters
Comment Actions
Change 387784 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/core@master] Remove Media namespace from the list of RCFilters
Comment Actions
It's the same with "Special:", right? Probably all namespaces with negative IDs should not be shown.
Comment Actions
! In T176990#3729356, @matmarex wrote:
It's the same with "Special:", right? Probably all namespaces with negative IDs should not be shown.
@Catrope and @SBisson, is this correct? Is Special also an unnecessary, bogus or redundant namespace? In my tests just now it returns results that are all logged actions, I think. Should we remove it?
Comment Actions
Hmm, only if you search for log entries; there are some weird interactions which may or may not be intentional (e.g. all abuse filter modifications have "Special:AbuseFilter" as the page title). This could be useful in some cases, I guess, but I think using the form on Special:Log is a better way to search for those. There wasn't a "Special:" option in the old interface (non-RCFilters).
Comment Actions
Checked in betalabs - Media namespace is removed from Namespace list. It seems that :Special returns only specific logged entries - Edit filter modification log and 'Deletion log' (actions related to changed visibility of a logged event). Overall, the :Special filter seems useful - it returns the subset of Logged events.
QA Recommendation: Resolve
Comment Actions
@Mattflaschen-Personal, do you have an opinion about whether Special is also an unnecessary, bogus or redundant namespace? Should we remove that too?
Comment Actions
I agree with @Etonkovidova.
Although it's a special case, these are valid results (although the edit filters arguably should use a real namespace and content model, that's a bigger change for another day), and I think it's valid to allow showing only Special (or inverting to exclude Special).