My personal preference is $array['key']. I feel this illustrates the intent better than having the key separated off with extra spaces. It's not like the array key is an optional argument, or there can be two in the same set of brackets. So what do we win by having 6 non-alphanumeric characters around a key ([ '' ]) compared to 4 ([''])? The single quotes already give the key room (when using a monospaced font, which I assume is the default).

Instead of stuffing the sidebar that already has to many issues (no room for long link labels, print section is currently gone, it's always to many links, less is more anyway), I vote for utilizing the "Information for Q…" subpages for what is asked for in this ticket, e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4115189&action=info.

This ticket appears to be some kind of subticket of T109420: [Story] Make exports formats more visible. Both are about discoverability.

I see my name, but I have no idea what to do on this page: https://tools.wmflabs.org/openstack-browser/project/Mwfileimport. An introduction would be lovely.

That's super helpful, @matmarex, thank you a lot!

@MisterSynergy wrote:

[…] bounds cannot be non-integers in those cases.

Ouch. This needs a MediaWiki core update. The core patch is merged, but the version running on http://mwfileimport.wmflabs.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Version is from 19 April 2018, about a month old. What are the update plans for core on this machine?

For your information, I uploaded an upstream OOUI patch at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/433150.

• It removes the box-shadow I already removed via https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/422412. The additional box-shadow: 0 in the AdvancedSearch .less file can be removed when the fix is in OOUI.
• The same patch also fixes the issue that some input fields appear higher than others.

This is what the patch https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/432939 currently does when I try it on my local dev environment (before/after screenshots):

Fixed via https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/422412, see T189950.

From all I know about quantity values and uncertainty bounds (a.k.a. "precision") I would say that "7251" is still a valid integer, even if it is followed by "±0.3".