Manual talk:Parameters to index.php

redirected to a 404 page
Seriously, where is index.php - what domain? I keep getting redirected to a 404 page. This should be really obvious and it's not.
 * it is hidden with http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Very_short_URL Ikip 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To do
Edit:
 * wpScrolltop: what is this used for?
 * why wpLivePreview? is this used to allow two buttons "preview" and "live preview" to be present on the form at the same time?
 * metadata

Article.php


 * token (edit token used in deletetrackback)
 * tbid

ImagePage.php


 * image: 1. the alternate text of the image thumbnail in the image description page, and 2. the title of the image when deleting all its revisions (appears to be no longer used; deleting the image description page now effectively deletes all revisions of the image)

Feed.php


 * ctype

OutputPage.php:


 * returnto

Pager.php


 * asc

redirect.php
Argument wpDropdown (the page to go)

Cascading protection
Cascading protection does not "change" the protection level of the transcluded pages; these have their own protection level, but are protected indirectly by the cascading protection of the transcluding pages. Tizio 15:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete parameters
"editredlink" has been replaced by "action=edit&redlink=1", so it's likely to be removed from Wiki.php at some point. When this is done, move to a separate "Obsolete parameter" section. Tizio 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I could swear action=raw worked...
But now all I get is a forbidden message saying "Raw pages must be accessed through the primary script entry point." I'm fairly certain this worked before... 75.17.213.235 09:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm sending request like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Parameters_to_index.php?action=raw this used to work (iirc)...I think...?


 * Do what the error messages tells you: use the primary script access point. http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Manual:Parameters_to_index.php&action=raw works. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 29939. Splarka 07:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AJAX
What should we do for using ajax in the search box? the description is not clear for me:

if enabled, calls a php function registered via $wgAjaxExportList; see Manual:Ajax. * requires $wgUseAjax to be true; the only callable functions are those in the array $wgAjaxExportList (implicite if $wgAjaxSearch or $wgAjaxWatch is set) * additional parameters: rs is the function name (e.g., rs=wfSajaxSearch); the rsargs[] array is the list of arguments of this function (e.g., rsargs[]=abcd passes the abcd string to the function). * the JavaScript function sajax_do_call for calling Ajax functions is defined in ajax.js

What schould a do in the LocalSettings.php

$wgUseAjax = true;

$wgAjaxSearch = true;

$wgAjaxWatch = true;

how schould $wgAjaxExportList[] with rs=wfSajaxSearch or array( 'wfSajaxSearch' ) works

Thx.

wp*Time...
I'm writing a bot for an internal corporate MediaWiki installation, and I'm running into the most peculiar situation. To a page that either does not exist or was created by my bot, I am able to update the page via the bot. On the other hand, if the page has been human-edited (no matter how far in the past), I receive a conflict resolution page. I have an edit token when doing this, and things appear to be okay there, but my values for the wpStarttime and wpEdittime are both blank. They are blank for two reasons really; almost every example I've seen has them both blank, and also I don't know what format a date would need to be in (or for that matter, a time pulled from where). Should they be blank? If not, what format should the stamp be in, and where should that date come from? This bot is for an automatic push of all schema changes to a database, so I really do not care about conflicts. Whatever my bot says should go. Is there anyone out there who can help me through this last leg of it? Thanks much in advance. -- Lance May 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason it works for you if the page does not exist, or if the last editor was you, is conflict resolution is automatic in the latter, and unnecessary in the former. wpEdittime is the timestamp of the last revision. This is used to insure that when you save, if you have the timestamp of the last revision, no edit was made between you starting to edit, and you submitting the edit. If this is the case, no edit conflict checking is required. If this is omitted or doesn't match the last edit, and you aren't the last editor, then you of course get an edit conflict.


 * The format for edittime is, (for example my edit right now, the timestamp of your last edit): 20080718153710 YYYYMMDDHHMMSS. You can get this via the API. For example, this returned 2008-07-18T15:37:10Z, all you have to do is strip out everything that isn't a number, and send it back. Splarka 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessing Request Parameters
If I'm creating an extension that uses it's own set of request parameters, is there recommended way to access request parameters? —Sledged (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Small error
"the non-ascii characters in the initial content of the textarea are converted into the form &#xxxx"

This is not correct (doing that conversion alone would not be reversable), what actaully happens is the following

All occourances of &#x are replaced by &#x0, then all non ascii characters are replaced by an entity of the form &#x; (note: the x is NOT a placeholder, it is literally part of the entity).

-- plugwash

Get Version at 'date'
I am trying to figure out a way to return a version of a page as of a certain date. It can be accomplished by going to the history, finding the date of interest, and then selecting the last version before that date occurred, then noting the oldid of that version. Instead, I am trying to figure out if there is any other index.php parameter that is like "&asOf=02142003" to return the version as of Feb 14 2003 (or an error if there isn't one, much like how if you use an oldid that doesn't exist). Does anyone know if this is in the extended parameter list, an extension, an API call, or whether I should write a hack of some sort?

Thanks, Jshorb 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't really possible with the UI. It is pretty easy with the API though. For example: action=query&prop=revisions&rvlimit=1&rvstart=20081201000000 for this page (rvstart takes the format YYYYMMDDHHMMSS). Gives you the top revision of the date specified. You can even get the revision with &rvprop=content. I used this feature to make w:en:User:Splarka/timetravel.js. Splarka 07:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That looks like an excellent tool which you wrote, and thanks for the helpful advice! Jshorb 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

action=credits: missing documentation
I am missing a documentation about this feature. I have found it on translatewiki.net, but I do not know, how I can activate it on a wiki. Anybody know anything about this? Thanks. Der Umherirrende 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) See $wgActions = array(	'credits' => true,	'deletetrackback' => true,	'info' => true,	'markpatrolled' => true,	'purge' => true,	'revert' => true,	'revisiondelete' => true,	'rollback' => true,	'unwatch' => true,	'watch' => true, ); - by default this is true, on WMF mostly false. G.Hagedorn 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, by default its turned on, but WMF has the config line:  in CommonSettings.php which turns it off. Bawolff 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oddity with explicit action=view in provided examples
The wikipedia elephant example does not display its first image when there is an explicit action=view in the URL (e.g. from following the link on this page); but it does appear with action=render or when following the view link and then removing the action parameter.

Is there somewhere better I should mention this? It's not really a support question... --WeaverThree 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

&handheld=yes
Should the  option be mentioned in this article? Tisane 19:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

revisiondelete=
revisiondelete is a parameter too, right? E.g., http://libertapedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATisane%2FTest55&action=historysubmit&revisiondelete=1&diff=24999&oldid=24998&ids[24998]=1 Tisane 04:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On Url
How change URL ? 201.43.188.70 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

action=ajax deprecated
As far as I understand action=ajax deprecated is no longer recommended, and extension authors are encouraged to use api.php instead? Maybe the should be a note on that and a link to some other page, though I don't know which... rotsee 22:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Preload if redlink
Is it possible to define (preferably on a link-by-link basis) that if a given link is a redlink, clicking it should do a defined preload? How can I accomplish this? 10:55, 14 February 2012 (EST)
 * I'm not sure whether preload actually preloads anything on an existing page, anyway see Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. Nemo 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will either, but if the page isn't a redlink I don't want to go straight to the edit link. Basically: * If page exists, go to * Else open edit screen with preload.  Thanks!
 * Just posted a workaround to this on the Preloading talk page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual_talk:Creating_pages_with_preloaded_text#FYI:_Use_redlink.3D1_with_preload_to_change_action_modes_if_the_page_exists
 * In brief, the query params need to be &action=edit&redlink=1&preload= . I don't know why it works, but it seems to. Don't use the section=new param, obviously--that's useful for a completely different scenario.
 * --SellaR 54.240.196.185 01:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

forcelinkupdate
seems to be an undocumented valueless parameter to accompany. See Manual talk:Purge. — Richardguk (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. I've also documented the debug parameter. — Richardguk (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

action=raw
This section says For security reasons, in some versions of MediaWiki this is only allowed when using the "primary script access point". Where/how is this configured?

On a MediaWiki installation we have running (1.19.2), ?action=raw does not work for simple URLs and &action=raw does not work for index.php?title requests. More precisely, ?action=raw works from the browser but not from curl. Is there some variable to enable this or detect the caller? --DavidBiesack (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

spambots circumvent captcha?
Could spambots somehow create an account with Manual:Parameters_to_index.php, circumventing the captcha? Igottheconch (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Any way to use parameters with wiki internal links (aka double-bracket links?)
I want to get the same behavior as this: Okra is good!

but be able to pass in query params like this: [https:// /index.php?action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template:mytemplate/preload]

Yes the full URL works fine, but there are 2 downsides: --SellaR 54.240.196.185 01:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the page displays the little padlock icon for every single link
 * full urls don't handle spaces like wiki links do, which is a problem when you want to use them in a variety of situations and autogeneration schemes. Thanks.


 * Creating a clean URL from an arbitrary page name can be done with the Magic Word  . Additonal unsafe parts of the query string (e.g. a page name for the parameter "preload=") can be encoded with.
 * To remove the little padlock without obtaining the matching tiny key, wrap the link in a span tag  with the CSS class "plainlinks".
 * All of the above and then some extra is rolled together in Template:AddNewSection.   -- Cat&#39;s paw (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New section at top of page
Is it possible to create a new section (with section=new) that is at the top of the page? I'm trying to create a link that preloads a template at the top of the page. I have to have it create a new section or else the preload doesn't work. Thanks, Negative24 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

nike air max 2013 homme
chaussures nike air max 90 These kinds of special shoes or boots are in reality connected to large well-known icons just like Michael jordan, Kevin Garnett, Nike air jordan, Kobe Bryant, Low-cost Jordans Shoes or boots, Nike Totally free 5. 0 guys british and also Lebron David. You should obtain these inside huge Sums also between several offer you special discounts about from suppliers acquisitions. In addition just like the indisputable reality thatthis firm tends to make almost all it really is shoes or boots in the area. The writer is one of the many most crucial major purpose the particular bustle and also pleasure go shopping PHANTACi nowadays received oxygen utmost nike 360 particular shoes and boots have been nike upwards Oxygen Michael jordan 3 Antique Michael jordan CMFT nike oxygen 10 besides the Nike Every one of the court room perspective, Which usually nike utmost jordans 3 Old style dull As the spindle leading nubuck buckskin and also vintage elephant skin color breaks brand names, incorporating the particular piste trend sort; Michael jordan CMFT nike oxygen utmost last year nike oxygen utmost nike females Roshe Work Mid-air Michael jordan 10 which usually modeled In fact, although Employing nike jordan making use of five vintage lace pockets efficient layout and also palm designed within your complete ft. nike oxygen utmost highest safety net Boost ease and comfort. Constantly find: Oxygen Utmost 1 will likely be referred to as Oxygen Utmost 87, Oxygen Utmost 1 certainly is the inspiration constantly workout shoes or boots! Oxygen Utmost 1 is the antecedent regarding someother shoes Nike Oxygen Utmost Tinker Hatfield and also incumbent Nike TOP DOG Indicate Parker large oxygen developed inside 1987 of your ". Advanced Oxygen MAX1 visual clothes bed-time technology as a result significantly Better big surprise and also steady efficiency.http://www.nikepascherfrance.fr/nike-air-max

nike free soldes Simply no avenues, bare concrete or perhaps asphalt flooring floors, each and every recommended "rails" regarding Oxygen Utmost 1 Oxygen Utmost ninety days summer turn into the specific inheritation and also creativeness with all the Oxygen Utmost 1, Given that they Seemed eachother coming from how many aa. Fresh Equilibrium 574 Oxygen Utmost ninety days In the mean time, calloused large absorber midair joe, Utmost 1 which usually lengthy, and also stableness have got made an elevated result. Fundamentally, Nike Totally free 5. 0 women selling british like a daddy and also child! Oxygen Belief 1 could be the proper problem connected to large oxygen, finest oxygen highest creation Sizes regarding b2c african american shade will be lighter routine and thus would the particular apperance Provides Attained fantastic similarility together with Oxygen Utmost 1 Affiliate marketing and advertising and also internet-based research rely far more when compared to the largest marketing and advertising price range. The particular boot would we are going to become looking into nowadays will be the Fresh Equilibrium 587 shoes. Fresh equilibrium is just about the major suppliers joggers because of this world. Yet another thing special With regards to this kind of service provider is the reality simply don'tNike Totally free Work Tiffany Glowing blue industry Their particular Shoes or boots to be able to very sportsmen. Original sports superstar Cristiano Ronaldo is now ascribed together with Nike CR Mercurial Steam II start sporting activities boot styles.http://www.nikepascherfrance.fr

nike air max thea homme Although Nike Totally free 5. 0 women british will be active getting surethat Michael jordan and also Charlie stricker are usually articles, Fresh Equilibrium will be articles to generate shoes or boots for women and also guys would normal throughout the world. They will started out simply by reconstructing the particular Nike Utmost Oxygen product to ensure the softest, many secure journey probably. The machine will be actual surfaces are in reality lessened to be able to motivate ventilation, as a result actual pontoons shift tough ft. to make Somewhat more overall flexibility in comparison to Before Nike Oxygen products. nike oxygen highest on the web inside 2013 Swiss, taken to living simply by Tinker Hatfield, Revolutionized a single venture not forgetting reshaped the style and also beauty and also layout terrain regarding functioning shoes or boots. The particular Nike Shox R4 Continues to be verified since the top a single away from market. Shox R4 allocate Leading menu Redirects influence makes inside the high heel around the copy. Bottom part menu Generates any protected foundation regarding heel-to-toe move. Move pitching wedge Permits any clean journey. The recently been known as any several things: springy, strong, bouncy.http://www.nikepascherfrance.fr/nike-air-max/nike-air-thea-homme