@Daimona: Larske has now removed a dangling | at the end of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Missbruksfilter/115

Adding svwiki 115 to the list. This filter is now erroring out since svwiki is already using the new parser.

I have informed Svensson1, Larske and JohanahoJ about this at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediadiskussion:Redigeringsfilter#Filter_115

This would be trivial if appropriate HTML was added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Convert and extremely unreliable as things currently stand (you would basically have to run a regex substitution across the entire page).

I wonder if this means TemplateStyles don't work in indicators either?

Well, you would have to add the mw-parser-output class yourself for it to work. See T37247, https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/352835/ and T188443.

Maybe the TMH JavaScript is scoped to #bodyContent or #mw-content-text?

Absolutely, I'm very happy that you're trying to sort things out! 👍

Things are still broken. For a minimal test case, see for example https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=46200983

Same as T189095?

The colon is there in the screenshot you added (directly below "Active filters"). I should probably mention that this is not a new issue – it's been like this since Recent Changes was revamped. This is just speculation from my part, but it looks like some developer tried to add the colon there to emphasize that the filter has to do with namespaces (which contain colons), but added it on the wrong side of the namespace itself (i.e. :MediaWiki instead of MediaWiki:).

I'm confused. Shouldn't it be set to false?

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Security_issues_with_authorization_extensions

Can't reproduce the problem in Firefox, Chrome or Edge. User:Pamputt/common.js contains a lot of old junk.

importScript('Utilisateur:Moyogo/latin_étendu.js');

gives "JQMIGRATE: jQuery.fn.bind() is deprecated".

importScript('Utilisateur:ArséniureDeGallium/vector.js');

gives "ReferenceError: hookEvent is not defined".

This happens when the servers are under too heavy load. Looking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Alexis_Jazz&offset=&limit=500&target=Alexis+Jazz it seems you have made 353 edits in one minute. That's almost 6 edits per second. That is several times faster than bots are allowed to edit on any Wikimedia project I know of. Even doing this with a bot flag would not solve the database retention problems you've seen. Doing this without a bot flag is absolutely crazy, as not only are you still editing too fast for the servers, but you'll also flood Special:RecentChanges, making life much harder for the few brave heroes there who try to catch vandalism. I suggest you read up on some etiquette before making any further edit:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Etiquette

See also T49512.

Same as T184858?

In T167246#5245129, @mahmoud wrote:

One other thing I noticed: The bot flag seems like something intrinsic to the actor, not the action, but rc_bot was left on the recentchanges table. Also doesn't appear deprecated. Any plans there?

That's T19237.

This is wmgUseSandboxLink in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/mediawiki-config/browse/master/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php

As Izno said, this reduces composability.

This comment looks strange:

/**
* Algorithm to convert Gregorian dates to Thai solar dates,
* Minguo dates or Minguo dates.
*
* Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_solar_calendar
*       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minguo_calendar
*       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_era_name
*
* @param string $ts 14-character timestamp
* @param string $cName Calender name
* @return array Converted year, month, day
*/

Is it supposed to say "Thai solar dates, Minguo dates or Japanese era names"?

Can confirm.

How can "edits" ever be stored as a "cookie"?

They can't. A cookie can only hold around 4–10 kB or so.

This is easy to do as a gadget or user script:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-SearchEdit.js
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-SearchEdit.css

Caused by T205581.

Can confirm. I recently made
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Nirmos/ResaveUnconnectedPages.js
as a workaround.

@Jseddon, @Rxy: Just editing MediaWiki:Sitenotice isn't good enough because it's going through the revisions and picking another one at random. You need to hide it with CSS like this: https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=45286235

I'm gonna go ahead and say it's an off-by-one error. For
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Excontent
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Excontentauthor
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Nstab-main
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Ipboptions
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice
it seems to show the [ current - 1 ] revision.

In T218918#5047325, @Nikerabbit wrote:

This sounds more like MessageCache or Database/Revision/MCR area of regression that isn't being worked on by Language team.

In T218918#5047566, @Nirmos wrote:

@aaron, @Anomie, @daniel: Any idea what's gone wrong here? I'm happy to provide more info if needed. See also T218983.

@aaron, @Anomie, @daniel: Any idea what's gone wrong here? I'm happy to provide more info if needed. See also T218983.

There is $.getJSON.

@Krinkle, it's the PHP 7 beta feature that can be enabled in the preferences.

I have no issue whitelisting the rest: <mark>, <progress>, and <time>. (Of these, <mark> seems the most obviously useful.)

What about <meter>, <details> and <summary>?

In T25932#4801842, @Nirmos wrote:

you'll probably want to re-evaluate UA stats after Nov 17 to see what the true final fallout is

If I'm reading https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-browser/browser-family-and-major-tabular-view correctly, then IE8 is at 0.5%. If we assume that 1% of those have disabled JavaScript, that makes it 0.005% of all users, or five in ten thousand. Is that good enough to start whitelisting a few HTML5 elements in wikitext?

I don't think there's anything the parser (or any other part of MediaWiki) can do to change this behavior. It's completely up to the browser as far as I know. Would love to be corrected if I'm wrong.

The diff in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/transactions/detail/PHID-XACT-TASK-4o7rea2lrkhv4y4/ is illegible. All I did was adding <details> and <summary>.

you'll probably want to re-evaluate UA stats after Nov 17 to see what the true final fallout is

If I'm reading https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-browser/browser-family-and-major-tabular-view correctly, then IE8 is at 0.5%. If we assume that 1% of those have disabled JavaScript, that makes it 0.005% of all users, or five in ten thousand. Is that good enough to start whitelisting a few HTML5 elements in wikitext?

nor is the TOC headline in blue

I am struggling to understand what you mean by this, but it sounds like a regression, and an unintended one at that. You should probably file a new task about this, and tag it with "Regression".

If the diff link is not the first item in the list, or in different places depending on whether a section was edited or not, that would be the end of counter-vandalism.

In T210822#4788433, @Nirmos wrote:

should it be "§" instead of an arrow?

This reminds me of T18691. Long story short: "§" does not mean "paragraph" in the broadest sense in all cultures. In some cultures, it only refers to paragraphs relating to laws.

should it be "§" instead of an arrow?

This reminds me of T18691. Long story short: "§" does not mean "paragraph" in the broadest sense in all cultures. In some cultures, it only refers to paragraphs relating to laws.

As JJMC89 has already noted, this is because '' in wikitext opens an <i> tag. This <i> tag is then closed before the closing </code> so that the tags do not overlap incorrectly, causing the ; to be italicized. The following wikitext gives the intended result:

<code><nowiki>output='';</nowiki></code>

Can confirm. I recreated the minimal test case live in case that helps anyone:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Nirmos/T208901
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Nirmos/Comment
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:Nirmos/Comment/styles.css

In T208140#4700118, @Krenair wrote:

In T208140#4700104, @Nirmos wrote:

loading an external script

CSP is on its way: T28508, T135963, T207900

CSP is good but it probably won't catch people e.g. loading JS from another, lower privileged, user?

loading an external script

CSP is on its way: T28508, T135963, T207900

Has the Parsoid patch that removes the p tags around style tags been deployed, and if so, when was it deployed? I'm asking because I'm still seeing style tags wrapped by p tags on for example https://sv.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/html/Anv%C3%A4ndare%3ANirmos%2FAnders_Bj%C3%B6rck

So, this was a combination of 3 things:

1. While the massmessage-optout-category category certainly is recognized by MediaWiki, it of course isn't added by MediaWiki. It is added manually by the users. This was a brainfart on my end.
2. On Swedish Wikipedia where I investigated this, old pages had the category "Pages with obsolete Vega 1.0 graphs". It had since been localized to "Sidor med föråldrade Vega 1.0 grafer", but the pages were still in the old category. This is a MediaWiki bug in itself. I have now resaved the pages so that they are in the new category and moved the category to the name that MediaWiki uses.
3. MediaWiki no longer adds any "Pages containing blacklisted links" category. It used to do this (the category key was spam-blacklisted-category). It was disabled for performance reasons in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/SpamBlacklist/+/122285/ Unfortunately, English Wikipedia manually adds this category using a template (Blacklisted link inline) which fooled me. This category really should be deleted on projects where it is empty, and hopefully the admins on enwiki can rename their category, although I doubt they would agree to that.

@Bawolff I'd like to get svwiki in report-only mode. Should I start a discussion with the community about this now, or is it way too early?

Filters can add tags. Doesn't this create the same chicken-and-egg problem that has already been described in T53421? Or am I completely misunderstanding what this task is about?

In T206411#4650108, @Framawiki wrote:

It is also possible that this bug is wanted, to avoid empty dict key in json files.