I can't see how it could get parsed.

They are always categorizable programmatically. The respective content handler just needs to provide a "side channel" for categorization. This could be for example a reserved JSON key or even a new MCR slot.

They are always categorizable programmatically. The respective content handler just needs to provide a "side channel" for categorization. This could be for example a reserved JSON key or even a new MCR slot.

In T392330#10767132, @Bugreporter2 wrote:

Wrapping everything in <syntaxhighlight lang=json> makes a completely incoherent neon-coloured headache-inducing mess. There is no lang=regex option, but there are, at least, other language options that aren't quite as bad.

Wrapping everything in <syntaxhighlight lang=json> makes a completely incoherent neon-coloured headache-inducing mess. There is no lang=regex option, but there are, at least, other language options that aren't quite as bad.

And using a JSON content model as in the new BlockedDomains would likely highlight regexes appropriately anyway. So yes, I more or less agree with that suggestion regarding the context of the spam blacklist.

In T392330#10756228, @Izno wrote:

I would suggest forking the spam related content to a new task to be a child of T337431: Rework MediaWiki:SpamBlacklist and this task.

I note the plan with T337431 is to completely deprecate the MediaWiki:Spamblacklist.

I would suggest forking the spam related content to a new task to be a child of T337431: Rework MediaWiki:SpamBlacklist and this task.

The author thought it should just reported "Content format not supported" instead, but I think it should be noted that even though the model=wikitext parameter is given, the parameter is not recognized and the error message text/x-wiki is not supported for content model javascript is displayed.

In T391524#10729004, @Aklapper wrote:

Try to manually add URL query parameter

Hmm, why would you do that?

Try to manually add URL query parameter

In T391524#10728573, @Aklapper wrote:

Thanks for reporting this! Cannot reproduce.

Thanks for reporting this! Cannot reproduce.

Change #1112091 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/AccessControl@master] Replace deprecated ContentHandler::getContentText()

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1112091

Change #1112091 had a related patch set uploaded (by Wargo; author: Wargo):

[mediawiki/extensions/AccessControl@master] Replace deprecated ContentHandler::getContentText()

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1112091

I can't reproduce this. It was probably fixed by making both forms on that page use POST, in T196514.

You can also create a page with non-default content model by going to Special:ChangeContentModel directly, and inputting a title of a page that doesn't exist yet. We could do something to make it more obvious that this works.

That would be T29311

Or perhaps a [[Special:NewPage]] with a dropdown would also be fine? This would also help us get out of having to tell new users "make a red link and then click the red link" type of discussion that often occurs.

I thought about something like this a couple weeks ago. I'm sympathetic to the desire, but also generally agree that we shouldn't have such a dropdown.

Yeah, I agree with Wargo - this is a rare enough use case on most wikis that the current situation of having to manually go do Special:ChangeContentModel is fine.

Probably some sort of pre-contenthandler DB corruption.

Change #1082585 abandoned by Reedy:

[mediawiki/core@wmf/1.43.0-wmf.28] AutoLoader: Use require_once rather than require

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1082585

Change #1082586 abandoned by Reedy:

[mediawiki/core@wmf/1.43.0-wmf.27] AutoLoader: Use require_once rather than require

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1082586

Change #1082587 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/core@REL1_43] AutoLoader: Use require_once rather than require

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1082587