This template is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
The website was updated to exclude id number in url. The new page is something like that. This means that this template should be reworked, if possible.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata is using the new form of string ID (e.g. laura-asadauskaite). The template can fetch and use those IDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
When I write {{UIPM|aleksander-lesun}}, I will still be redirected to [1], instead of [2].--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. But if you put that ID in Wikidata, and remove the ID from the template in the article about lesun on this wiki, it will work correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have made the equivalent of [3] here [4] to fix our url's. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've undone your changes. The identifiers have changed, not just the URL structure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have tested 10 transclusions at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:UIPM. All 10 are broken in your version and as far as I can tell it's impossible for the articles to fix any of them because the url structure in your version is never supported. All 10 cases worked perfectly in my version with no need for the articles to change anything. In view of this I have reverted again. If you disagree then please try to give a good explanation. If there are any of the untested articles where my version is broken then I think it can be fixed in the article or at Wikidata but would be impossible to fix with your version. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
After further testing I found 5 articles where my version didn't fix the link. All 5 were fixed by simply removing the id like [5]. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
You need look no further than the two examples in the template's documentation. Both are 404. The reason your five latter examples work is that the updated ID for each happens to be in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
But examples with a number as ID are broken in both versions. Isn't it better to be 90% right with the last 10% being fixable in article/Wikidata than being 0% right with nothing being fixable? I think the five articles I fixed were the only broken cases so it's now 100% right in current uses. The documentation just needs an update. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I know the ID numbers are broken in both versions; that is why I wrote, yesterday, "The identifiers have changed, not just the URL structure". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have updated the documentaion.[6] The archive parameter was and still is undocumented. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
