Talk:Post-upgrade fixes

Please add a bug or a feature request as a new section, click HERE.

Creation of a family

Maybe for the same reason as in the section "Création personne" above, only family records that have already been saved show the red link "Add a new person".
If a family record has just been opened with a title like "Family:New?parents=1777999", it does not have these red links. Dn Gov (d) 15:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the same. --Baya 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On the record for a person, the buttons to register parents / children / couples have been restored, but if users start that way a page for the couple of that person, they may be blocked because there is not yet the link or button to create the second person of the couple.

And now it is the same when trying to change an existing family record. --Dn Gov (d) 14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I started to work with this point and found (I became older :) ) that we have strong inconsistency in wiki texts. I'm going to do a small change to add consistency in connections between people. What we have now - we can add parents and children at one page. It means that when it is required to find who and where did these changes - it become a real nightmare, especially if these changes where done in other localisation. I suggest decreasing the amount of possible variants to have one source of truth inside one localisation. All connections will be editable only as parents for this specific person. To add child to somebody it will be required to go to the child's page and add there a required parent. What do you think? --Baya 21:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that finding authors is a complex issue. Maybe two years ago, i thought (i don't remember if i wrote it on Engine) that one possibility could have been to create a common read-only database (basically in English) where the history of a record would immediately include changes from parents, children, couples and all localisations (only the common elements like dates and main image), something a bit similar to Wikidata. But it would only alleviate the headache.

If parents are added on the page of the children, the link to the parents would be registered in the history of the child, but would that mean that the history of the parents would keep no trace of any link to children? In that case, it would also be a headache to find which children were linked in the past (like today for marriages).

Or would it mean a two-steps connection like the process with couples (for the creation of the second parent) : a new page created for a child (from the page of a parent) would include a pre-written connection to at least one parent, and saving the new page of the child would automatically bring the user back to the pages of both parents in order to tick there the name of the child?

It would be more rational, but the process for couples is a frequent source of mistakes for beginners : ticking the second parent is often forgotten, or his/her page is created several times.

(I added another issue about system messages on Mantis.) -- Dn Gov (d) 00:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

When a record for a person is opened and the button "Add a family" is used, the initial record is automatically saved at the opening of the family page, without direct action by the user (but with his/her account).

Could it be the same thing instead of a two-steps link : using the record of a parent to open a new page for a child would automatically save the record of the parent (or keep it in suspended animation), and when the page of the child will be saved, the record of the parent would be reopened to add automatically the link to the child?

A variant of that would be to use the "Initial translation" account : when the page of the child is saved by the user, the automatic account would add the link to the child in the record of the parent, with a comment indicating the page of the child and the name of the user.

That would diminish the number of changes and new links about which you envisaged to inform users when they would edit records. -- Dn Gov (d) 10:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll do it for family now just to see how it works. There will be a button - a click on it saves the current family and open new person edit page - when person will be saved - the family edit page will be opened with preview with added new person - so, it will be required just to save the family page. --Baya 21:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

user registration with spam bot protection

I think also to add some restrictions for beginners. For example, they can not edit existing entries until they add 50 own records?

It can be a good idea. A few years ago, i created an account on an internet site dedicated to movie stills (official photos of films) : you could win points if you added some new pictures.

Although today new users write mostly on their own records. Dn Gov (d) 20:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• stronger protection added )) --Baya 13:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please play a bit with CromaShift Puzzle? I want to use this during user registration. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. --Baya 21:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

After one or two tries, i can do it in about 30 seconds, but other people may prefer a more figurative puzzle. -- Dn Gov (d) 12:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A small trick - don't think about how to combine them - at first - just drag everything on the board. and after swap required stuff --Baya 13:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

C'est très joli et cela me semble rudement efficace pour dissuader toute nouvelle inscription...--Mamonaku (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Your other puzzle (1-15) gave me a short headache. I played with a similar game as a child, but here for my first try it took me 15 minutes to finish :) -- Dn Gov (d) 08:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

For me it was the same - I solved it so long ago ... But it can't be used as captcha )) --Baya 17:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for warm words )) --Baya 11:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday I recall the main issue of registration blocking. People - spammers and vandals. I'm ready to enable registration, but. Currently records are too fragile - if vandal do something with record it will be rquired to go to the latest good language and resave the last edit. It is not very convenient and non-obvious. I think it will be better before this to do couple things.

1. make user blocking system common for all languages. I think it'll take 4-5 days of work. it is required to consolidate a bit more than just blocking data.
2. add a special config - it will be prohibited to edit existing person/family records by user that does not add 100? or 50? own records. - 1-2 days.

--Baya 14:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to envisage a differentiated treatment for self-registered users and for accounts registered by people who are already members. In the second case they would have less limitations because they would have been more or less invited by the old members to intervene on their tree (and so under their supervision). -- ~~

Editing last version of a record

On Rodovid, the last version of a record registered in a localisation is not the same thing as the last cross-language version of the record (the one that takes into account edits from related records and other localisations).
So in the history of a record, users can view the last version recorded in the localisation, but if they want to edit it, they must add &action=edit at the end of the address. Otherwise, the normal behaviour of MediaWiki starts to edit the cross-localisation version.
Is it possible to change that behaviour so that, in that case, clicking the edit tab would edit the last version in that language? Dn Gov (d) 16:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

To avoid race conditions. I did it specially, but I want to add more. If global record is newer than local I'm going to show changes between local (old) and global(new) when user starts editting. So it will be visible at once what changes are added in other localizations ... --Baya 20:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

the question. what the issue with such behavior? It should work in this way: global data should be overridden by local data, so it is visible what data was added/removed ... --Baya 01:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

So when previewing in 1.9.6. newly entered user data was compared with global data (and only later in history compared with local data), while in the future, with overriding, user data would be compared in previewing with local data?
But users also need to compare their new data with the global one. It is difficult to reconcile the two necessities. Dn Gov (d) 03:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

here are A and B locales. A data, B data, global data.

global data is updated ecvery time when any locale is updated. so it is always has the newest state.

old issue. B is newer. when user updates A the newer data becomes overridden by other new/old data.

solution whenever user edits any locale system always shows the latest global data but. All existing in locale data (except dates (normalized data)) overrides global data.

the current issue is that it is hidden from user. So I'm going to add comparison before the form to show that this record was changed globally.

--Baya 04:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

So, are you planning two different processes :

* the usual preview, but telling first to users the changes from local data to the latest global data, and then showing the changes from the global version to the new user's data?

* another preview when users choose deliberately to edit in history the latest local data?

In the first case, would there be in the history some "Initial Translation" account registering the global changes just before the user's changes? --Dn Gov (d) 05:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

no, process the same. only one change. when user starts editing (click edit tag) - at this moment form is shown with the mixture of newest and locale's data.
but I suggest showing together with form the diff between current locale data and new global data (if global data is newer than current locale's data)
--Baya 05:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok :) --Dn Gov (d) 05:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

images are not shown in past versions

(Post-Scriptum : i noticed that you had removed the "Clan" and "Place" prefixes in records, but not that you also removed the "Image" prefix, so i did not understand why pictures seemed to be missing in past versions of records.) (Post-Post-Scriptum : is it better to report issues here or on Mantis?) Dn Gov (d) 16:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• it's a bug... I did some investigations. but did not find what is wrong yet. Crashing is most important now. I already prepared a new OS image... --Baya 20:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• PS. I don't know what to do with mantis. I prefer to use bug tracker. And anyone who is interesting can see the state and current task in work. We can add voting there, etc. But I remember that people, in most, continue write about issues in mw ... --Baya 20:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• PPS on the other hand - keeping long discussion pages with all outdated bugs and tasks - makes such pages unusable and untraceable for daily routines - it takes too much time to find required stuff - that's why I clear this page. With bug-tracker there is no such issue. --Baya 20:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)