Wed, Jul 17
Wed, Jul 10
Today (it's a bug), if you want to view a page without TemplateStyles, preview the page using VisualEditor.
Tue, Jul 9
Mon, Jul 8
On the point of unified diffs, WikEdDiff provides unified view and I almost exclusively read diffs using it rather than 2 column.
Sun, Jul 7
Wed, Jun 26
Mon, Jun 24
Sat, Jun 22
YYYY-MM is generally insufficient to distinguish from a year range. I think there has been discussion about that particular amount of information on Phab, but it's a regular discussion topic on en.WP.
Jun 10 2019
Jun 9 2019
Jun 6 2019
This is not a problem with the software. You need to fix Template:Citation/core. You should probably leave a note on the talk page there.
Jun 1 2019
And new permitted values.
May 31 2019
The page had local interwikis defined. I removed them.
May 30 2019
May 27 2019
May 25 2019
T157670: Changes to MediaWiki code related to parsing can leave links tables out of date and/or T221795: Refactor Category::refreshCounts logic to a job and simplify are I think the ones of interest? Just merged this to one in fact based on a similar merge that Krinkle did.
May 24 2019
May 23 2019
May 19 2019
May 16 2019
May 14 2019
I fixed the direct issue with the template. This report may be a particular instance of T11996: Multiline tags in lists should be output more intelligently otherwise, but I'm going to close this one and you can follow that one if desired.
It is neither of the two, and I was actually able to close the former--the parser is generally whitespace sensitive.
May 11 2019
This is somewhere between a High and a UBN given how destructive the result is onwiki (and while en.wp has prevention in place via filter, not all wikis will). (I have taken into consideration the Phabricator project management guideline, just to preempt you, Aklapper. :) )
Sometimes #time is used in further calculation, which <time> would prevent.
May 8 2019
I faced some resistance when I advocated removing this wikitext at WT:WP Accessibility/Archive 6#Status of table summaries.
Why is this an entirely separate task to those proposed in the community poll?
May 6 2019
May 5 2019
May 4 2019
Apr 25 2019
All seems draconian seeing as there are many editors who put pretty colors on their user pages in the page title.
Which does have its downsides, e.g. the resurrected b and s elements (which following either WHATWG or W3C would not have saved us).
As for which to prefer, the nicety of the W3C is that it is versioned. The living spec you would need maybe to fork the WHATWG version on github just to have a baseline and then update periodically.
There are other differences in semantics between the two specifications e.g. <cite> where at least en.WP has in fact influenced the W3C toward a more permissive use for the element.
Regarding useskin=mobile, you can do that today with useskin=minerva.
Apr 24 2019
Apr 23 2019
Apr 19 2019
Apr 18 2019
I like it, but I think I'd also like it gone because having to look behind it drives me nuts. =)
Apr 16 2019
(Which is nonexistent?)
Apr 12 2019
I agree, this is well done.
Apr 9 2019
This is not core software problem, in Cite or otherwise. The incompatibility is in the gadget. (It has other known incompatibilities.)