Indeed, that solved the immediate issue entirely: the bot's run went from 195m down to its expected 5m or so.

That said, I'd love to know why the plan switches too; there's an obvious inefficiency there even if it doesn't explain the odd discrepancy when the proxy is involved.

Ah, I had suspected it did not use an index, rather than just different ordering. But the most interesting question in my mind is: why is this happening only when going through the proxy and not when doing the queries directly on the DB behind it?

(Forgot to mention that those queries are being run on the frwikisource database)

I'm a bit surprised nobody searched Phab on the topic first given that T66115 is specifically about whether to include those properties.

I'll be working on changesets for the points above shortly.

In T483#2293454, @GWicke wrote:

All modern browsers support <link rel="stylesheet"> in the body

In T483#2289895, @GWicke wrote:

Adding the parsing team, as this would introduce page-global state, and also needs to work in Parsoid and VE.

@kaldari I've also been taking a look at how valuable the various search results are in practice, and with Google I am able to coalesce some of the searches together using operators; reducing the query count by 50% at the cost of a slight increase in false negative results* - if budget is the sole remaining issue that would lighten that load quite a bit.

@csteipp, template description updated - I think that's most/all of what you need? I don't expect the work involved to be extreme, the extension is pretty well self-contained and has few interactions with core.

@Jdforrester-WMF: What is next for this? Anything I can do to help things along?

In T483#2232623, @brion wrote:

If volunteers are +2'ing config updates and deploying them, I'm impressed. :)

In T125459#2221746, @Legoktm wrote:

Share or set up another proxy/IP...?

We don't run afoul of 2.7.11 (we provide the links themselves), but 2.7.7 kills us since we explicitly do filter.

I think the extension is at a point where that review makes sense.

In T483#2232314, @brion wrote:

Note that people do like to use templates outside the template NS, for user or project pages for instance. Not sure if we want to support that explicitly/implicitly/not at all, etc. :)

With the latest rounds of merges, the TemplateStyles extension appears to be in a reasonable state and implements the major substantive part of this RfC as discussed in Jerusalem.

What's left to do?

In T17075#2231789, @He7d3r wrote:

Only if you are going to require that for each book we make edits to add the same template to each page of the book

In T48580#2228508, @jayvdb wrote:

Is it safe to assume this feature will not suddenly become active and in use in production once code from this task is merged?

In T483#2223326, @Edokter wrote:

I think scoping to #mw-content-text should be enough. Any tempate appearing outside actual content is usually protected anyway.

In T48580#2214028, @Ankry wrote:

We are still waitng for Page namespace support which is the main editing namespace for most wikisources. Moreover, many new wikisourcians edit only in the Page namespace. The general trend is to have articles in main namespace automatically or semi-automatically generated basing on data from Index and Page namespaces. So having VE support in main namespace may be a nice feature, but mostly useless.