Last modified: 2006-11-09 17:21:25 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T6586, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 4586 - Random Image transclusion
Random Image transclusion
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Extensions requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-01-13 00:01 UTC by Jamie Hari
Modified: 2006-11-09 17:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Jamie Hari 2006-01-13 00:01:50 UTC
I was hoping we could have a {{random image}} tag, or something to that effect. I 
suppose you could easily infer what it would do...

Maybe also a pixel size switch like {{random image|200px}}...
Comment 1 Zigger 2006-01-14 06:53:36 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
>...
> suppose you could easily infer what it would do...
>...

Random on first save (subst:) / all saves of that page / page rendering into
cache / every page retrieval (ad rotator) ?

It could be a syntax extension, e.g. <randomimage width="200px" />, depending on
the intention.
See [[meta:Extending wiki markup]].
Comment 2 Lupin 2006-02-05 14:36:32 UTC
It's not exactly what you requested, but on sites with constant uploads like
wikipedia, 

{{Special:Newimages/1}}

produces a pseudo-random image (the last one uploaded) in a gallery.
Comment 3 Rob Church 2006-06-09 14:41:20 UTC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RandomImage
Comment 4 Jamie Hari 2006-06-10 01:27:55 UTC
That is exactly what I was looking for... and THAT is why I love the MediaWiki
dev team! Thanks Rob! Cheers!
Comment 5 Jamie Hari 2006-11-09 00:28:25 UTC
Should this extension maybe be brought into core?
I think a lot of people would really enjoy this...

Just a thought.
Comment 6 Rob Church 2006-11-09 07:58:36 UTC
I'd rather it wasn't, since I'll get bitched at when people discover it doesn't
work well with caches. Extensions are self-contained add-ons, that's the whole
point of them. It's simple enough to download and install it.
Comment 7 Jamie Hari 2006-11-09 16:44:46 UTC
You make a good point Rob...
If they can't install an extension, they probably have no business running a web
server.

With that said, it is too bad there isn't better communication / organization of
all the neat extensions that exist. Then again, that is another story altogether...

Cheers.
Comment 8 Rob Church 2006-11-09 17:21:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> With that said, it is too bad there isn't better communication / organization of
> all the neat extensions that exist. Then again, that is another story
altogether...

I believe there are efforts to set up some sort of catalogue on MediaWiki.org,
although like most MediaWiki documentation projects, it might well be stalled or
abandoned now. :)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links