1

Hi, I recently made a change to the article treat Whitlow for some minor changes but then discovered that it has been rolled backed. On seeing the diff, I found out that my edit had accidentally removed the Sources and Citations section. (diff here ). So I edited the article, yet again, (diff here and here ) but found the same problem to repeat. I did not even edit any “sources and citations” for that matter. I am not sure whether it’s a bug or something else that I’m missing, but just felt to give a heads-up. Was editing in “Guided editor”. About my browser : https://aboutmybrowser.com/3mHxUdQY

2

I took a look at the article, Firstly, I could not see the rollback. It just has some minor edits which improves the article. Care to Elaborate? Secondly, It may have been rolled back because ( http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Treat-Whitlow&diff=next&oldid=12095994 ) there was no edit there! Anons may have rolled it back as they could have thought that it contains no extra text. Please coach me if am wrong, Ima

3

@Imaginationoriented You could not see the rollback because the diff was to my revision of the page. If you click on the arrow to see the next revision, you’ll find the rollback. (See here ) And to that revision, indeed, there was a edit (a test edit though).See the space I removed: Old revision : * Take hepar sulphur (homeopathic medicine). My (test) edit: *Take hepar sulphur (homeopathic medicine). Anons CANNOT patrol changes on wikiHow. Only registered users CAN.

4

I was the one who rolled back her edit here . I did this because her edit removed the sources and citations section/ I then proceeded to edit the article

5

Sorry for confusing:) It may be some newbie then…

6

This problem is still persisting.

7

Hey Shina! I did a little testing on this. In general, it looks like even if the Sources section doesn’t show up in Guided Editor (which seems to happen when there is only {{reflist}} there - not a list of links), it usually preserves itself and shows up in your edit anyway - ie doesn’t get removed how it did in this case. I *think* the problem here was the capitalization of the REF tags. Once I changed them to “ref,” my test edit preserved the Sources section okay. Have you seen other instances of this behavior, though? If so, send me some articles and screenshots and I can dig deeper! Either way, I agree that ideally the whole section would show up in Guided Editor anyway! That’d help with any confusion. I’ve filed a bug for that. Hopefully after the upgrade, the engineers can streamline that:slight_smile:

8

Hi Anna, Hmm… So I gave it a try and yep, it published “okay” (edit here ) but the location of the interwiki link was misplaced, I guess that’s because as you said it looks like even if the Sources section doesn’t show up in Guided Editor (which seems to happen when there is only {{reflist}} there - not a list of links), it usually preserves itself , so any solution for that? And, no, this is, as far as I know, the first time I’m facing this thing. Indeed:slight_smile:Thanks for replying!

9

Thanks Shina - yeah, I’ve filed a bug report. I think it’s something to do with how the section sees the reflist template (with a set of links, it works fine). So that’ll need some looking at! The engineers are pretty tied up with the upgrade now, but I’m hoping for a fix down the line. I definitely agree that having the Sources section show up would be ideal, and making sure the interwiki links stick in the same spot, too. For now, I’d go with the Advanced Editor if you’re worried about it, but hopefully we can get Guided doing the same thing:slight_smile:Thanks so much for catching it. Good eyes!