The issue is somehow resolved. I guess some servers had failed and this was addressed.

In T247483#6059385, @matmarex wrote:

(There is also a secondary phenomenon affecting the appearance of the template on top of the same page, which states that the page is a sandbox. The template renders differently in VisualEditor during the first edit of the page, than after the page has been published. After publishing, the template renders in VE as if the page is being viewed, not edited. This did not happen in the past, when the template was not cached inside VE. Although this does not directly relate to losing the content of the page as described above, it might be resolved along with the lost content caching issue by using the same approach for solving both: by disabling user sandbox subpage's caching when {{REVISIONID}} magic word is met in the page.)

(I think this is covered by T178354.)

Is there a reason "adding the citation without refs after a bullet" solution cannot be implemented nowdays?

The only consensus, so far, is in the usefulness of automatic disallowing a fair use file creation onwiki, if it is oversized. The two step procedure (upload, create file page), that gives the option to check image area dimensions before page creation, was not initially realized. A constructive point on the initial proposal was that different fair use file types might need different file size limit. I will let the full conversation find its balance on all topics before I go to English VP.

Please forgive my english, I did mean disallow.

The proposal is for Wikipedias mainly. Files that are already there are not affected, only new uploads. In fact all that is needed is implementing the size limit for choices and each wiki can decide for itself.

I agree that help has to come from inside the page, focused on the need / mistake = focused on human. The GuidedTour would be more useful if it popped up on mistakes, giving short directions. Let's begin with script code for detection.

Useful for common mistakes like using bold or links in section headings, and maybe for duplicate reference optimization, although these are for VisualEditor and I suspect medical students use the code editor.

In fact this has already been secretly implemented on July 2017 and it worked then (I checked Greek and English Wikipedias) but now is withdrawn.

test page (create page in wikicode editor and in visual editor (which fails):

Chameleon (my term) is an adaptive template that has a different appearance and behavior, depending on the mode of the page (read or edit).
It is defined as such whenever {{REVISIONID}} check is performed inside a template.
Caching kills the {{REVISIONID}} check functionality in VisualEditor.
This is a bug. Caching should be excluded for pages containing {{REVISIONID}}.

But it still does not pass the prefix parameter, so it is still buggy: T172631 .

No, it is an issue of inputbox. The string passed to VE is without the prefix.
The proof is that VE is able to create user pages, via Inputbox,
without using the prefix, as long as the whole path of the page to be created is typed.
Inputbox does not ever send the whole string (combination of prefix and typed string) to VE.

I am sorry to say it again, but, supposing version 1.30.0-wmf.12 has been implemented, useve does not function properly.
Parameter prefix does not function when useve=true is used.

NOT resolved, cannot create a page with VE in user space, i.e to create a sandboxed article

T144796 refers to the same since Sep. 6, 2016.

T52769 does not seem to have anything to do with the current topic, at least on the surface. Is for both difficult to handle templates?

A good practice is to offer multiple lists to select harv citations from, (items grouped by ==section== in different lists) and prefer to automatically expand the list already containing most harv refs anchored on its items or the most recent one used during the edit. This will allow citing even the author's books, if needed.

Only cite book containing ref=harv , cite journal containing ref=harv and citation bulleted citations should feed the list to select from to make harv references. The list of books a writer has written should not be cited by any of the three above, meaning that citation should not be used and cite book should be used without the ref=harv parameter/switch, there.

This example does not contain any " {{Citation " citation. And should not. I cannot find an example why someone would like to make harv references out of such lists. I feel there is a misunderstanding here.

A " {{Citation " citation should be treated as if it already contains a " |ref=harv " in code, because it behaves like it does even if the parameter is omitted. There are articles with 100, or more, " {{Citation " citations, used by harv referencing (example). I should be able to make a new harv ref easily, based on a citation -or a combination of citations- that already exist, like in the example given.

• when VE detects a bulleted " {{Citation " it will be a citation for use with harv
• any bulleted citation can be toogled (while being created or edited) to be used or not for harv referencing, by adding or removing the " |ref=harv "
• when adding a new bulleted citation, " |ref=harv " (or not) gets inherited as a selection from just above, if just above it there is also a bulleted citation
• non-harv citations wil not appear in the list to choose from

We need this functionality to let new editors create sandboxed articles from article templates in our education program, work protected from community intervension until ready (given space and time for mentoring), and move finished sandboxes to article main space when ready.

You are right, it works this way. It is not obvious that one can type in a new group, it seems only possible to select one from the list. It might help to change message to:
"Use this group (or type in a new one)"

I have added instructions to use purging and it works well in English. In Greek Wikipedia purging opens an additional tab in the browser and we are left with the same page opened twice (one updated, one not). Purging code needs an update in Greek Wikipedia. Having this settled, the case is closed.

Thank you for assisting, purging is an acceptable solution and I have commented to promote the option for single click purging. I will update sandbox instructions to include purging in order to immediately update the list.

T139893: In our education program we have, since this July, lost an automation in helping new editors contribute, as every new user now has to purge his main sandbox to see the changes in his list of sandboxed articles. 200 people have been taught to use these sandboxes so far, some make heavy use of the multi-sandbox functionality and our new education program is about to begin. Single click purging would help.

If there is a single click button to do this it's fine. The path we have to follow now is click edit source, scroll, and click save (without changes). It would also help to use the 5 minutes delay instead.

If there is another way to provide our multi-sandbox functionality, please do, and we will follow.

This affects our user group's education program and is really important because we have built on this and we continue to escalate. I hope we will have it ready before the begin of our new courses.

The solution can be as simple as trying to detect if we are trying to put the citation just after a bullet. A bullet does not ever need a referencce after itself. As we only need this functionality for bulleted sections for bibliography, this seems to me as an optimal solution. - We can also give it as a help hint and that will be all needed.

No, we do not. It was first reported on July 2, 2016. - There was a discussion about sandboxes and their possible usage as trash bins before final delete of articles, during Wikimania, a practice used by Wikimedia Poland. There might be a connection.

This is the number one reason I still teach wiki editor. All articles sourced on bibliography have to be edited by code. - We still use books in Greece, please assist.

This is an article in Greek language.

It is easier to fill in one field (Author) with all authors in a copypasted form (wikieditor) than manually bring up first name and last name fields for each author (visualeditor). Bringing in all fields for completion by selecting number of authors, in VE, would be handy.