Trying for example create an new Featured picture candidate on commons, the edit intro usually shows what code should be entered on the list page, for example Trying to create an nomination of image called 'Testing.jpg' you'll be redirected to edit page:
The edit intro now says '{{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}', last week it would say '{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Testing.jpg}}' instead.
Version: 1.18.x
Severity: normal
| Title | Reference | Author | Source Branch | Dest Branch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do not imply that user actively selected object policy | repos/phabricator/deployment!8 | aklapper | aklapper-wmf/T333955 | wmf/stable |
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Amire80 | T23778 BiDi issue in RTL wikis at site notice with LTR text ending with Unicode characters with neutral directional | |||
| Resolved | None | T31876 1.18 post-deployment actions (tracking) | |||
| Invalid | None | T33395 Regression: <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> is not parsed when viewing in an edit notice |
I've noticed that the magic word {{REVISIONUSER}} renders as a blank string when placed in an edit notice. This sounds suspiciously like the same bug.
(In reply to comment #0)
The edit intro now says '{{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}', last week it would say
'{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Testing.jpg}}' instead.
I saw that it was indeed litterally saying "subst:FULLPAGENAME" instead of the actual page name. However, to my knowledge, it was never supposed to show the full page name there. If under 1.17 edit notice showed the full pagename there, then that was a bug. Because in templates and all other transclusions, subst: is only parsed when saved, not via <includeonly>.
The behavior were trying to simulate has been implemented a few years ago as "safesubst:".
However, when looking at Template:FPCnomNewInstructions again, I don't see why you need any of the complicated <includeonly> and subst: for FULLPAGENAME. It can simply just be {{FULLPAGENAME}}.
Marking INVALID as this was a fixed bug in inconsistency between the editnotice parser and the regular parser, not a regression.
(In reply to comment #1)
I've noticed that the magic word {{REVISIONUSER}} renders as a blank string
when placed in an edit notice. This sounds suspiciously like the same bug.
These are not related as far as I know. Please open a new bug for that including steps to reproduce or a live example.
Thanks :)