Help:Procedures

A collection of check lists to be used when performing
complex changes
to articles or other maintenance operations.
Sections
Move a section within the same page
The move should be done in a
single edit
that does
not change anything else
:
Cut the text to be moved. Do
not save the page
now, i.e. do
not perform the move in two edits
—the first removing the section and the second pasting it—or in the second edit it will seem that you are the author of the section, especially if the accompanying edit summary is not clear.
Paste the cut text at the new position.
Adapt the heading level if needed, but do
not make any other adaptations
to the content for the moment, otherwise the modifications will not be visible in the resulting edit diff.
Save the page,
properly writing the edit summary
.
Now you can proceed to editing the section text normally, as required.
Split section to a new subpage
This procedure is useful when moving a section of an article that has become too long to a subpage of that article.
Copy the entire section content.
Open the destination subpage in another editor (another browser tab).
Paste the copied content in the destination editor
without any modification
.
Save the destination subpage with an edit summary like
content split from [[Origin article#Section]]
.
Make sure to include a link to the original page, or it will seem that you are the author of the content.
In the origin editor, replace the split content with a link to the destination subpage either leaving the section heading in place, or adding a link to the
Related articles box
of the article.
Save the origin page with an edit summary like
content moved to [[Destination subpage]]
.
Re-open the destination subpage in an editor.
Categorize the destination subpage like the origin article.
Adapt the levels of the headings of the new subpage to start from the second level.
Tip
This step can be done automatically with
Wiki Monkey
's plugin.
Save the destination subpage with a
proper edit summary
.
Check and fix any broken links to sections in both the origin and destination pages, and in pages linking to the origin page.
Tip
This step can be done automatically with
Wiki Monkey
's plugin.
Fix broken section links
Pages may occasionally contain broken section links, which is the result of sections being renamed,
merged
, moved or deleted from the pages. All pages in the main namespace are regularly checked by
Lahwaacz.bot
, which checks all links and marks them with
Template:Broken section link
when section links are broken.
To fix a broken section link, do
not
simply remove the reference to the section links from the wiki, do some research first:
Looking at the history of the page where the section is located, it is possible that the section was renamed, merged, moved or deleted. If the change is not immediately apparent, see
#Revision history as a git repository
.
If unsure, mark the section with an appropriate
status template
rather than completely removing the reference to the section.
All pages with broken section links are tracked in
Category:Pages with broken section links
.
Redirects
Deal with talk pages after redirecting a page to another
If page
A
has been
redirected
to page
B
, for example after
merging
the content of
A
into page
B
, and
Talk:A
exists:
If
Talk:B
does not exist,
move
the entire
Talk:A
to
Talk:B
, letting MediaWiki automatically redirect
Talk:A
to
Talk:B
.
If
Talk:B
exists:
Move
the still relevant discussions, if any, from
Talk:A
to
Talk:B
.
Ensure that the discussions left in
Talk:A
, if any, are
closed
.
If
Talk:A
hosts discussions that have been closed for less than the period specified in
Help:Discussion#Closing a discussion
, flag
Talk:A
with
Template:Redirect
, so that the page will be redirected to
Talk:B
after the closing period.
Else, immediately redirect
Talk:A
to
Talk:B
.
Fix double redirects
Read
this section
to understand what redirects are.
Check out
Special:DoubleRedirects
to see if there are any.
For example, if you see
Pastebin Clients (Edit) →‎ Common Applications →‎ List of applications
, it means
Pastebin Clients
redirects to
Common Applications
, and
Common Applications
redirects to
List of applications
. Therefore,
Pastebin Clients
is a double redirect.
To fix it, edit
Pastebin Clients
and change
#REDIRECT [[Common Applications]]
to
#REDIRECT [[List of applications]]
to skip the middleman.
Enter an edit summary such as
Fixed double redirect
and save.
Tip
This task can be done automatically with
Wiki Monkey
's plugin.
Editing over a redirect
See
mw:Help:Redirects#Viewing a redirect
.
Revision history as a git repository
This article or section needs language, wiki syntax or style improvements. See
Help:Style
for reference.
Reason:
The section does not fit in the page (it is not a procedure). (Discuss in
Help talk:Procedures#Revision history as a git repository
)
You can save
page revisions
as
git(1)
commits
, and then use traditional
Git
tools—e.g.
git-bisect(1)
,
git-blame(1)
,
git-log(1)
, etc.—for history investigation. For example, see
Gitify MediaWiki
.
See also:
Who Wrote That?
WikiBlame
Fix broken package links
ArchWiki contains many broken links to packages not found either in
official repositories
or
AUR
, which is the result of packages being merged, split or removed from the repositories. All pages in the main namespace are regularly checked by a bot, which checks all instances of
AUR
,
Grp
and
Pkg
templates, tries to automatically update them and marks them with
Template:Broken package link
when it is not possible to update them automatically.
To fix a broken package link, do
not
simply remove the reference to the packages from the wiki, do some research first:
Search the package database (
pacman -Ss
) and
AUR
, it is possible that the package was merged or renamed.
For broken packages from the official repositories, you can also search the commits at
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/state/-/commits
.
For broken packages from the AUR, you can look in the
aur-request mailing list archives
.
If looking for a specific file, for example a binary that was part of the package,
pkgfile
might do the trick.
If unsure, mark the page or section with an appropriate
status template
rather than completely removing the reference to the package.
To help with manual updates, each "broken package link" template provides a hint:
"invalid number of template parameters" — All
AUR
,
Grp
and
Pkg
templates take exactly one parameter, but the wikitext specified more (or none). In most cases the excessive parameters should be moved to the surrounding text, or removed if already there.
"replaced with
[other package]
" — The package was renamed or merged into another, which specifies the old package name in the
replaces
array. In most cases the old package should be simply replaced with the new one and surrounding text updated accordingly.
"package not found" — Default hint when none of the above applies.
All pages with broken package links are tracked in
Category:Pages with broken package links
. There is also an automatic report page at
User:Lahwaacz.bot/Reports/archpkgs
.
Note
The bot updates only package links, but not the text around them, which is too context-sensitive. For example, in
revision 308608
the AUR link was changed to Pkg, but the surrounding text still says that the package is in AUR. These instances can be fixed and "future-proofed" by simply removing the surrounding description of where the package is; see also
Help:Style#Package management instructions
. We currently have no means of automatically tracking this kind of problems, suggestions are welcome.
Maintenance of listings of applications
There are a number of lists of applications articles, mostly at
List of applications
but it also links to sub pages containing listings, e.g
PDF, PS and DjVu
.
Because of the sheer number of them, listings need constant maintenance due to entries becoming irrelevant, breaking, changing or moving to a different place.
See
#Fix broken package links
above and to a lesser degree also
#Fix broken section links
.
Obvious signs for an entry needing maintenance are dead or broken links. A common workflow would be as follows:
Is the entry still relevant?
E.g a floppy disk manager or token ring networking tool would not be relevant anymore.
As are tools for services that ceased to exist, e.g ICQ.
Is it still maintained?
Generally, archived repositories also include an explicit hint that it is unmaintained and abandoned, but if the last commit was many years ago, it counts as the same thing.
While some programs are considered finished and will stay in working condition for years to come, this is generally an edge case and software should be actively maintained by upstream.
Also consider the state of the package. Does it build? Will it break soon? If you discovered that upstream was archived and it serves no use anymore, because there are better alternatives anyways, you may also want to file a deletion request for the package in the
AUR
.
Are there alternatives listed?
Even if upstream is not in the best condition but it is still usable, you may want to avoid removing (one of the) last entries in a listing. Of course, this depends on the relevance of the listing itself. There is no sense in keeping a listing if all entries stopped working entirely.
Page removal
Fix links to archived pages
When a page is archived, the guidelines at
ArchWiki:Archive#How to archive a page
state that all link to the page should be removed prior to archival. In some contexts (in particular for translations, where the context of the sentence does not allow the simple removal of the link without altering the experience of the reader), this might not be done when archiving the page.
To fix a link to an archived page, do not simply remove the link from the page without doing some research first:
Adjust the page by replacing the reference to the outdated content with its replacement (e.g.
Special:Diff/704983
).
For a translation where you are fluent enough to update the page (or for trivial substitutions where there is no chance of making a grammatical mistake), match what has been done to the English page.
If unsure, mark the section with an appropriate
status template
rather than completely removing the link.
All pages with links to archived pages are tracked in
Category:Pages with links to archived pages
.
Remove an entire page
New but inappropriate page
If inappropriate because of spam or other clearly malicious content (evaluation is made by an Administrator), it is
deleted
right away;
In the other cases, e.g. irrelevance to Arch, the article should be:
marked with
Template:Merge
, or
marked with
Template:Redirect
, or
marked to be moved as a subpage of its author's User page with
Template:Move
(or moved right away
without leaving a redirect
, per
Help:Style#User pages
).
Old article become obsolete
Mark with one of the following, in order of preference:
Template:Merge
− When there is still some chunks of content to add to the target page (e.g.
Gapless Audio CD Creation from MP3s
)
Template:Redirect
− When the target page needs no change to be coherent when accessed from the redirect (e.g.
ProFTPD
)
Template:Archive
− As a last resort, if no page is a logical target for redirection (e.g.
SiS
)
Wait at least 7 days.
In absence of objecting discussions, or when these eventually resolve in favor of removal, perform the proposed action:
When redirecting, consider following
#Deal with talk pages after redirecting a page to another
and
#Fix double redirects
.
When archiving, follow the instructions in
ArchWiki:Archive#How to archive a page
.
Create a new page and its translation
See
ArchWiki Translation Team#Create a new page and its translation
.
Move a discussion to another talk page
Copy the discussion text to the destination talk page, making sure to add, between the new heading and the pasted text, a note like:
''[Moved from [[Origin talk page#Heading]]. -- ~~~~]''
Strike the heading in the origin talk page and replace the content with a note like:
''[Moved to [[Destination talk page#Heading]]. -- ~~~~]''
Rename a category
Move the category page the same way as you would move a normal page, ensuring a redirect is created from the old title to the new one. This will only rename the category page itself, the members of the category will not be recategorized.
Recategorize all members of the old category to use the new one.
Tip
This can be done automatically with
wiki-scripts
'
recategorize-over-redirect.py
, which relies on the redirect from the old category to detect the new name and thus it is not limited to changes in capitalization or similar heuristics.
Update all interlanguage links.
Tip
This can be done automatically with
wiki-scripts
'
interlanguage.py
or
Wiki Monkey
's bot plugin.
Update all backlinks of the old category to refer to the new one.
Tip
This can be done automatically by running Wiki Monkey's
RegExp substitution
plugin on the old category's
Special:WhatLinksHere
page, with a substitution like
(\[\[|\{\{Related2?\|):[ _]*[Cc]ategory[ _]*:[ _]*[Oo]ld[ _]name[ _]*(#|\||\]\]|\}\})
->
$1:Category:New name$2
(assuming the old category name is "Category:Old name").
Mark the old category with
Template:Archive
, without destroying the redirect (the old category is likely still linked from
Table of contents
).
Tip
If the category has no relevant history, it can be deleted by an administrator, after ensuring that steps 2.-4. have actually been performed.
Patrolling
Checking the
recent changes
can be done by everybody.
Maintenance Team
members however can also mark edits and pages as
patrolled
. This section is primarily about the things everybody can do.
Keep in mind that patrolling the recent changes obviously requires a more constant commitment, while fixing other things is more flexible and can be done whenever you have time.
Recent changes patrolling
There are two main ways you can patrol the recent changes:
Visiting
Special:RecentChanges
at regular intervals, checking all the edits that have been made since the previous visit.
Subscribing to the
Special:RecentChanges Atom feed
and checking the edits as soon as you find some time.
For each edit, or group of edits made to the same page, you should assess if it is questionable, according to your experience and knowledge, also taking into account the list of the
most frequent problems
.
If you think the edit requires a quick fix that you can perform immediately, just do it. This especially applies to minor style problems, typos and grammar fixes.
If instead the edit is questionable but you cannot fix it, you should look if it has already been flagged with appropriate
status template
:
If not, add appropriate template to appropriate section describing the problem.
In case there is already a discussion for the edit, see if you can add useful details to the accompanying note or discussion.
Tip
Make patrolling easier by taking the following steps:
Enable the
Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist
setting under
Preferences > Recent changes > Advanced options
.
To follow your watched articles using a feed reader, use the Atom link in the left column of your
watchlist
page.
Bot edits
MediaWiki does not display edits by
bots
in the recent changes by default. It may be desirable to check when one of the bots modified pages since it may indicate that changes are necessary.
The bots flag
broken package links
,
broken section links
and dead links.
It is
highly recommended
to fix the flagged things as soon as they appear before they get buried under a ton of changes. This also applies to dead links, which are usually external resources.
Common problems and solutions
Note
You can
always
ask the
Maintenance Team
for help.
Abuse
Fortunately, spam and other things that violate the
Code of conduct
are quite uncommon, but it will still happen occasionally.
The most important task
is also applying here. Make sure to fight abuse immediately:
First and foremost,
undo
all the damage.
Contact the
Maintenance Team
. You can also do so by joining the
ArchWiki IRC channel
and mentioning the administrators, which are usually all channel operators.
If there is a wave of abuse and undoing the damage would give the abuser more time to act, report it first.
Content-related
Removal of useful content: undo or contact the author.
Unexplained modification or removal of content: contact the author, undo if there is no reaction.
Major modification (usually in a single bulky edit) without sufficient explanation: contact the author.
Style-related
Signature, credits, personal observations in articles: undo or move to talk page.
Start headings from level 1: move all sections up 1 level.
Uncategorized new article: add category and fix header.
Improper use of templates: fix according to
Help:Style
.
Addition of installation instructions: undo or comply with
Help:Style
.
The MediaWiki patrolling feature
Note
This feature can only be used by members of the
Maintenance Team
.
Marking changes as patrolled is a very useful way to avoid doing things twice when not necessary. Every member of the Maintenance Team is encouraged to make use of this feature to save the time of others.
Sometimes, especially when someone does not have experience with a topic, it is not clear if one should mark the edit as patrolled or not. Not marking an edit as patrolled means that other members of the Maintenance Team are more likely to look at the change. Here are some tips which may help to patrol more changes:
Typos, grammar or language fixes are usually very easy to validate. Take care of them first if possible.
Additions to talk pages can be marked as patrolled if they make sense (appropriate for the topic, e.g discussing games on a page about the archiso is not appropriate).
User pages may contain anything as long as it does not violate any rules. They are unfortunately basically exempt from most style guidelines.
Any
developer
may do anything in the
DeveloperWiki
.
Translations are hard to check if the language in question is not known. One can use
DeepL
to check if the translation is roughly correct. Checking translations of very new users helps to find low-quality edits and vandalism.
Mistakes happen. If a user notices a mistake of them and undos their own edit, it is alright to mark both of them as patrolled.
Mark edits which were reverted by a member of the maintenance team as patrolled, as the one who reverted the edit likely just forgot it.
New pages may be incomplete and/or have style issues. Mark it as patrolled if it fits into the ArchWiki. Consider watching this page and make sure to take care of it if it gets abandoned.
All of these points imply that the change must not violate the code of conduct or the rules described in
ArchWiki:Contributing
.
Other
There are other things which need to be taken care of:
Check the list of newly created accounts to see if any of them edited yet. Edits made by very new editors should always be checked since the editor may not be familiar with all guidelines yet.
Make sure any additions to talk pages are
signed
.
Sometimes, users are not aware of the
Add topic
button on a talk page. Make sure new discussions are placed at the bottom and have an appropriate section name.
If the edit summary looks like
→Some section: new section
, the user used the
Add topic
button.
If a user consistently adds new sections manually, feel free to remind them that there is the more convenient
Add topic
button.
Blankings and edits with very large differences should always be investigated.
New pages are also worth a look, improving them and fixing style issues sets a good example and helps the author.
Make sure that edits which modify tables do not break them by e.g inserting a stray column.
Edits without a proper edit summary need special attention. There is also
Template:Editsum
if the user is not using edit summaries properly.
Undos are a common sight but should still be checked.
Request solving
See
ArchWiki talk:Requests
.
If you think you can fix the request, just do it and remove appropriate templates. See also
#Common problems and solutions
.
If otherwise you feel it is better to contact the author of the questionable edit, write them a message in his talk page, or send them an email in order to request an explanation or discuss further.
Tip
Prefer trying to fix the oldest requests.
Prefer fixing content-related over style-related issues.
You may consider using an editor assistant (e.g.
Wiki Monkey
's
Editor
configuration) in order to solve some common style issues automatically.