Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Editing

39 proposals, 552 contributors, 1287 support votes
The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)

Unbreak selection in the wikitext editor

  • Problem: In the new Wikitext editor, selected text doesn't work with Navigation Popups, so that I can't tell whether a link I just inserted is to the right thing just by selecting it and reading the popup, and when I want to copy and paste text, I can't just select the text and use middle-button paste on Linux: the selected text somehow doesn't get into the primary selection.
  • Who would benefit: Users of Navigation Popups who use the new wikitext editor
  • Proposed solution: I'm not sure what is causing this, so I'm not sure how to fix it.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Slashme (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


  • @Slashme: Are you talking about the meta:2017 wikitext editor? Also Navigation Popups are not shown in any editor, but a similar looking link context is shown in the visual editor. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    @ESanders (WMF): yes, I'm talking about the 2017 wikitext editor. Thanks for the correction! Without the Editing Toolbar, Navigation Popups does work. I've just tested it. When the editing toolbar is active, it doesn't work. --Slashme (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    NavigationPopups is a community built gadget so I would suggest you talk to the maintainers about this feature request. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Community Tech is happy to work on Navigation Popups, if maintainers will have us. But going directly to them might result in a quicker fix. Thanks for clarifying the issue. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
MusikAnimal (WMF) it's not just about the navigation popups issue: it's also that somehow selected text isn't being seen as selected by the operating system, so that I can't just select text and then middle-button paste it. It would be nice to know whether that's a bug, a feature, or an inevitable side effect of the toolbar. --Slashme (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite understand what the proposer is describing, but it really is remarkably problematic not to be able to move text around easily. Selection breaking is why I rarely use the Syntax Highlighter; it breaks the middle-click selection pasting in the editing pane. HLHJ (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


Round brackets

Deutsche: Runde Klammern

  • Problem: Sometimes it takes a long time to put the corresponding words or sections in brackets in long lists. Would be nice if there was a tool to speed up this process.
Deutsche: Manchmal dauert es sehr lange bei langen Listen die ensprechenden Wörter oder Abschnitte in Klammern zu setzen. Wäre schön, wenn es ein Werkzeug geben würde, mit dem man diesen Vorgang beschleunigen könnte.
  • Who would benefit: People who work with brackets a lot.
Deutsche: Leute, die häufig mit Klammern arbeiten.
  • Proposed solution: Similar to curly brackets, link brackets or wikilinks, but just round.
Deutsche: Ähnlich wie Geschweifte Klammern, Linkklammern oder Wikilinks nur halt eben rund.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: --Melly42 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Hi Melly42. Thanks for this proposal. Would you want to see this implemented in the wikitext editor or in the visual editor, or in both? Also, do want it to work that when you type "(" the editor automatically supplies ")"? How else would you trigger this? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by AEzell (WMF) (talk)
  • I do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you please elaborate on which feature you want? There are already rounded brackets available to use on most keyboards, but they're not meant to be used on the wiki's code since they're used very frequently in the text to highlight comments and such. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The proposal is also unclear to me. Hazard-SJ (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, you can use the old editor's synthax highlighter... Ok, I just tested it and it's no Notepad++. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ( ) – Round brackets. --BoldLuis (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for replying lately. I was in a hospital the past two weeks. I wish round brackets in the Visual Editor and the wikitext editor (insertable wiki markup). That means when I mark a text segment both the open bracket and the closed bracket should be set automattically. That might be useful for long species' lists, where you set the Latin name in brackets. --Melly42 (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


Allow the usage of talk page specific markup inside the visual editor

  • Problem: Some functionalities that are often used in talk pages are either not present in the visual editor or disabled outside of talk pages and due to that, every article where someone may use either of those features need the wikitext editor. Besides that, regular articles could benefit from more structured listing options and signatures.
  • Who would benefit: Bloggers who use signatures to state when each blog post was created with ~~~. People who wish to have more options for structured lists since currently only "*" (dotted) and "#" (numbered) structured lists are available.
  • Proposed solution: Per the title, create options for ":" and ";" inside the bullet list menu, make it possible to enable signatures on regular articles and enable different signatures such as date only or signature only.
  • More comments: What's above is more important, but I wish it was easier to look for media files with dubious filenames (E.G: 1234567890.jpg) because inputting into the search bar the file name gives a lot of PDF files from commons as a result, but the file in question is nowhere to be found.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T39938 Support for creating and editing definition-lists in VisualEditor
  • Proposer: MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


  • @MarioSuperstar77: I kind of agree with this, and support it a little bit. Keep it up, and stay safe! MemeGod27
  • Regarding the signature bit, that's already configurable on a wiki level. The $wgExtraSignatureNamespaces config controls what namespaces the signature tool shows up on. Depending on the exact use-case, picking some more namespaces to have it enabled on by default could work (assuming community agreement)... or, more involved, providing some way for a user to override that setting. Choosing the type of signature is a little fiddlier from a visual stance, but we could maybe keep the current "turn it into a preview when you enter the ~~~~" behavior and a single signature menu-item, and then have some options on the signature-preview node that'd let the user toggle the type. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It could be used a hidden template for this Template:TalkVE or another of the proposed solutions.--BoldLuis (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support anythig to make talk pages better, of course Leftowiki (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Je ne comprends pas la proposition mais je soutiens tout ce qui peut améliorer ou faciliter l'écriture en mode visuel que j'utilise essentiellement. Cdmt' Mylenos (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose MW isn't a blogging platform; you're free to bend it into one, but MW devs should spend no time on that, given how much work there is to do building tools for WMF's central mission. Also, there's already an internal mechanism to redefined pages in any namespace as talk pages (that's why things like w:en:WP:ANI and w:en:WP:VPPRO work like talk pages). So, the tools to do make random pages have talk-page features are already inherent in the system anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment Even without the signatures (Which seems to be your main complaint here), having a more diversified structured list menu would not hurt anyone. I already use ; and : lists on my wiki, but they are only available inside the wikitext editor which is an inconvenient bummer. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Allow text and table colour to be featured on the visual editor to change

  • Problem: There isn't an option to change the colour of the text or table
  • Who would benefit : Editors who can do tables in one go and people who make user pages
  • Proposed solution : Adding the colour option for text and tables for English Wikipedia, using the colour chooser; with the most common colours, consider that it can just be picked off a preset option.
  • More comments: If there is an option to make text bigger, why can't we have the option to change colour?
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Beetricks (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


  • This has been discussed in previous years. --Izno (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a colour book. I just like the standard CSS style. If we would require more colors at some places, then we might do this by using CSS code. Only then we are sure that the layout is always coherent. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support Support for convenience. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Arbornaos (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 20:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support changing table colour (as in individual cells) as this is an absolute pain when doing up results tables for sports, in that an editor must manually input the colour of every cell in the source editor. On the other hand, I do not support making text colour easier to change as this is significantly easier to do if needed but is not a common enough occurrence to be inconvenient, but could lead to vandalism. 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Omda4wady (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mylenos (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support JPxG (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support - yona B. (D) 07:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Euro know (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support The easiest, the best. BoldLuis (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Meiræ 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vince789 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Colours should usually be left alone. Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support This is one of remaining reasons why I switch back to wikitext. Papuass (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Adding semantics (through classes/templates) that use colors would be fine, but do not allow ordinary users to use arbitrary colors. Crissov (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vikrantkorde (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Xhs 唯心而为 12:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tratser (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support No brainer aegis maelstrom δ 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

VE makes partially linked words and adds unnecessary tags to the wikitext

  • Problem: By creating or changing links in VE (=Visual Editor), it often results unlinked word parts. It is language-dependent, but in some languages using unlinked suffix is never correct. Beside of the incorrect appearance, for example [[word]]s becomes [[word]]<nowiki/>s in the wikicode, and the unnecessary <nowiki/> tag just litter the wikitext and makes it unreadable in more complex situations.
  • Who would benefit: both readers and editors
  • Proposed solution: avoid adding <nowiki /> after links (on wikis, where this is required) (We could use a bot which frequently delete all the <nowiki/> syntax from the wikicode, but that increases the edit number (server traffic) and the length of the page histories. Why don't we just solve the problem rather than always making a mistake and then correct it in a second edit.)
  • More comments: this looks an easy to solve problem to me, but there is no real progress since 2015/16. If some language communities asks for having this behavior default, offer an option to be able to choose per wiki base. On the Hungarian Wikipedia VE has a bad reputation because of this kind of (long-time not solved) bugs and many editors think that we should not use VE at all until it generates clear mistake into the wikitext.
  • Phabricator tickets: T128060
  • Proposer: Samat (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


I see a use case of this feature, specially in languages which combines words together. For example maybe somebody would link wishlist so, that only the wish or list is linked, because there will never be an article about wishlist. Wishlist is easier, but for wishlist VE should still offer a possible way to create I believe. Samat (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support proposer Samat (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Teemeah (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support A longstanding issue with VE that I've seen a lot in practice. I had the sense that on the English Wikipedia this was one of the main reasons VE has a bad reputation too. — Bilorv (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I would love to see this change made in VisualEditor. It irks me when I change a linked term (either by pluralising it or decapitalising the first letter) and it creates a few unnecessary bytes in the source code via piping. Tenryuu (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support the nowiki tags also annoys me when editing in VE LM150 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tgr (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes, this is annoying. Papuass (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vikrantkorde (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support this is one of the reasons I avoid VE! It's so great for adding citations but then I feel the need to switch back into source to remove all the nowiki tags and change words to words. Enwebb (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kku (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) VE is creating lot's of such useless, sometimes really annoying, clutter. It should behave in an acceptable way, without doing stuff, that's unwanted
  • Support Support Afernand74 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support SupportOmegatron (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support EEMIV (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Predictive edit summaries based on changes to article text

  • Problem: Some edit summaries take longer to write than the edits themselves. Editors write edit summaries in jargony shorthand unfriendly to new editors ("r/re" for reply, "ce" for copyedit, if there is an edit summary at all).
  • Who would benefit: Page history readers and new editors
  • Proposed solution: Identify common types of edits and either offer or default to suggested edit summaries for simple edits: replies (new, indented comments), minor copyedits (a few characters tweaked), resolving an error, adding/removing X parameter in Y citation, all things a computer can identify.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: czar 01:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)



  • Support Support Imetsia (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Modern browsers can already remember edit summaries you've made. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support + more checkboxes (or auto filling edit summary based on) for minor changes (like typo; categotries etc.) - often summary is longer than correction. => uniffied entries. Zombie(CZ) (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support - --Mylenos (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Even if mostly accurate (which I believe would take a huge amount of work), you might spend more time checking accuracy and correcting mistaken suggestions than you would just typing "copyedit", or forget to check and leave misleading summaries all over the place (or if it forces you to accept the predicted summary then we're back to the problem of this being slower than not having the feature). I think people type "ce" because they don't care, not because it's too cumbersome to. This is a user behaviour problem, not an interface problem. — Bilorv (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Daylen (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Helder 09:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Bilorv. Frankly, when WMF's devs can't even get basic HTML-specs-compliance taken care of, after 15+ years of the same bug reports about the same problems being open, the idea of them taking on advanced AI stuff is both wrongheaded and farcical.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wolfmartyn (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Neon Richards (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I could imagine a scenario in which this proposal and one further up about checkboxes for types of minor edits kind of pool together -- edit summary tags, for example. But anyway. This seems like something I'd probably turn off the first few times the suggestions are just wrong, ya know? EEMIV (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to amend the preview of the "NoteTag" template (请求修正“NoteTag”模板的预览)

  • Problem:{{NoteTag}} is widely used to add notes in articles. But there is a unfixed bug: this template will show a blue subscript (styled as [note 1] or [a] [b]), but the pop-up preview shows an icon of reference (an icon of book and text "Reference"). Footnote does not equal to reference. They are two different concepts, so the display must be made reasonable.
  • Who would benefit: All wikipedia users
  • Proposed solution: Remove the icon of "Reference", or develop another pop-up window to separate explain-notes and ref-notes.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: 蕭漫 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Translator: Steven Sun (talk)



Warn when linking to disambiguation pages

  • Problem: Between 500 and 800 links are added to disambiguation pages each day. This means readers are less likely to get directly to a relevant article when they click on a link and instead are shown a list of possible matches for the term. A recent en RFC to en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make links to disambiguation pages orange by default suggested coming to the community wishlist.
  • Who would benefit: Readers - in helping them get to the relevant article and editors in not having to fix bad links.
  • Proposed solution: A warning message appearng on preview or publish when adding a link to a dab page asking whether the editor really wanted to do this.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T97063
  • Proposer: Rodw (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


Sure, but if you know enough to install a userscript like that, you're probably already checking for accidental dabs. A warning to newer users along the lines of "are you sure you wanted to link to this page" seems like a good idea IMO, as long as there were an easy way to resolve it (i.e. pop up options linked from the dab page). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • On enwiki, even editors who wanted to link to this page should do so via its X (disambiguation) redirect. A simple warning would be very helpful to readers and to those of us who mend such links. A way to choose a correction and replace [[Mercury]] by [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]], etc. would be even better. Certes (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Code to pick the correct link could be shared with a Dablinks replacement. Certes (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • For the solution. It can ask if you want to preview the disambiguation page in another browser window or tab. The user could surf from there to a disambiguated page (then could click a button in VE to add this page instead of the disambiguation page)--BoldLuis (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As an easy solution, to activate this option for all your wikis, you can edit m:Special:MyPage/global.css to contain:
.mw-disambig { background-color:#AFEEEE; }
.mw-redirect { background-color:wheat; }

Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this but I suspect most editors don't do this (or may not even know about it) otherwis we wouldn't be getting 500-800 links to dab pages being created every day.Rodw (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    So this is why we want a global solution, thanks to the below "Support" votes... Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Heißt das, der Haken beim Begriffsklärungscheck (d:Q6047536) sollte automatisch gesetzt sein? Denn die Funktionalität ist ja schon lange vorhanden, auch ohne dafür zum Scriptkiddie mutieren zu müssen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    This Gadget seems not to be available on all Wikis? Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's available on all Wikis, it only has to be implemented by the local communities. So there is nothing to do here for the devs, it's an existing gadget. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ruwiki solution:
    ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-disambiguationLinks.js Carn (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I supported this, but only on the assumption that implementation will focus on solving the problem in a modern and user-friendly manner, and not merely implement the disruptive workflow currently hinted at in the comments. I think it'd be a lot simpler and better for everyone if we focus on the act of writing itself. In the visual editor, we can prompt users contextually right as they are creating or inspecting a link, and suggest one of the destinations from the disambiguation page instead, at which point we can have a list of suggestions right there. A similar thing could be done in the 2017 wikitext editor, and even in the 2010 editor when using the dialog to create a link. I don't think this is important enough to distract readers with, nor to inject a primitive warning forcibly into the save workflow. Doing so would, I think, drain considerable amounts of energy and will power from contributors to still continue with their edit, and much more to actually rediscover and address the issue itself. That sounds more like abuse mitigation, and less like contributor education. --Krinkle (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support ValeJappo【〒】 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Could be a convenient way to know whether a page is a direct link to an article or not. I will add that we should do that with redirects too if possible. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Eridian314 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dr747 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support DragonHawk (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Quarz (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Berdajeno (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Stryn (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support A subject expert who adds a link is better placed to pick its correct target than a polymath gnome. Certes (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Silver hr (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support KTC (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kisnaak (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Pmau (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nw520 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support YFdyh000 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Redactedentity (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support RXerself (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Alkari (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shizhao (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 03:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ezlev (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Flipchip73 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 04:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support This would hopefully eliminate a tedious maintenance task, freeing up editor resources. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Xgeorg (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support P40fA (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mbkv717 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ardub23 (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support No such user (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nurg (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support SunDawn (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lion-hearted85 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support JAn Dudík (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kpjas (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sakretsu (炸裂) 11:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 1Mmarek (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lugnuts (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support MilkyDefer (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Would help to optimize usability both for readers and editors. Jjkorff (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hb2007 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support and ability to open it and choose the correct link would be even better Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mannivu · 15:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support NMaia (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Em-mustapha User | talk 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lirazelf (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Honestly, with so much concern over people mixing things up, there's not enough disambiguation in Wikimedia, and this would just be a deterrent. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Paul1764 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Browk2512 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nehaoua (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support dwf² (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support - Darwin Ahoy! 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nyq (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support JPxG (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support - yona B. (D) 07:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Szczot3k (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support extremely needed feature. —Omnilaika02 (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mike Peel (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support disambiguation links are almost never intentional, except in hatnote templates Dexxor (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Afernand74 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Srđan (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support  Swazmo DiscBlanco.svg DiscWikiP.svg 22:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Geniac (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Adamoszkovics (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Paucabot (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Strong support. Must be prioritary. BoldLuis (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ArnabSaha (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Asartea Talk (Enwiki Talk (preferred)) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Bencemac (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support StringRay (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Noel baran (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Szalax (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support James Martindale (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support warning in preview but no warning modal, in which we risk losing the edit altogether czar 17:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Gereon K. (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support KasciJ (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anaxial (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support This would be useful outside of the Wikimedia world as well. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Kusurija (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wutsje (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Meiræ 21:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Prioritizing improvements that increase human productivity is strategic, and preventing problems in the first place is helpful. -- Beland (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jingkaimori (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Helder 09:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Francois-Pier (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ~Cybularny Speak? 11:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tom Ja (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support TheLatentOne (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Theshumai (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vincent Simar (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Emperork 🐋🐰 00:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support TeKaBe (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Edgars2007 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gufosowa (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kaviraf (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Podzemnik (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kimsey0 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support β16 - (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Papuass (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support and agree with Kaybeesquared: ability to open the disambiguation link and choose the correct link would be even better. RavBol (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support WTM (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose As noted above, this is already provided several times over by user-level JS and CSS. The MW devs have no reason to waste resources reinventing this wheel.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  05:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per SMcCandlish's summary. I think there needs to be a really strong reason for new editors to be presented with a message and their edit unexpectedly not being saved, as it's a steeper learning curve, more time involved to make a simple change, and the person may not understand that their edit has not gone through and exit the page. 500 to 800 per day doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly given that many can be ignored given that they are from Articles for Creation drafts that will be insta-declined or edits not in article space etc. Experienced editors should be reminded of the options they have to be able to catch themselves before (or after) introducing dab links. — Bilorv (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Definitely would come in handy for me Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mollifiednow (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support SeGiba (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vacant0 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vincent Ramos (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per other opposers. This functionality does not need to be globalized, and there's no indication that this particular mistake needs to be warned against compared to any other mistake that could be made when editing a page. There are already methods to find disambiguation links in the bodies of mainspace articles, (i.e. the DAB orange link gadget,) so the errors are easily fixable, especially if you notify the user who introduced the DAB link by undoing their edit so that they know to be mindful in the future. I don't believe we automatically warn users for any other type of mistake that could be made, so I fail to see why this particular issue is worth the change. And if this does get implemented, I would hope this only applies in the mainspace or can be turned off in some way, because I would hate to be warned if I'm linking to a DAB page on a talk page or something along those lines. And even then, there are definitely reasons to link to DAB pages in mainspace articles anyway. I think the biggest problem with this proposal is that it would ignore context, which I think it does, at the proposal apparently just throws a warning if a DAB page is ever linked to. What if I want to link to that DAB page via a See Also section, or god forbid I use an about template. I could very well be misinterpreting the proposal, but I would rather continue edit with as few automatic warnings as possible, and there are good reasons to link to disambiguation pages as well that unfortunately appear as if they will be included in the warnings. Utopes (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support GiFontenelle (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Does anyone think a similar fuction when editing would be benficial for editors? DMT biscuit (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per SMcCandlish's rationale. This calls for the pertinent CSS/JS scripts to be ported to the projects who want them, it doesn't call for the WMF to reinvent the wheel. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wolfmartyn (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support no brainer, and skips the talk page message the next day from DPL bot Enwebb (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dankowski (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose as others have noted, this may discourage (and be confusing to) new editors and it is a generally easy problem to fix already. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Risk Engineer (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 02:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Strong support ingenious idea! JN Dela Cruz (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nadzik (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Gibt's schon, da muss nichts neu entwickelt werden. Ist ein Helferlein (Gadget), das nur angekreuzt werden muss.
  • Oppose Oppose A link to a dab page is among the least significant errors that can occur in a newly contributed text and I see absolutely no reason to start harassing editors about it even more than we already do (on enwiki, they'd get a talk page message from DPLbot about the dablink any way). Also, this was proposed, and rejected, on enwiki back in 2016. Uanfala (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Any change should exclude deliberate disambiguation links, the ones with "(disambiguation)" on the end; warning for this would just be annoying. Any warning should also mention this option. Would support visually distinguishing disambiguation links from links to pages. Since I enabled showing them in orange I've added far fewer unintentional DAB links; I catch it in preview. It's also useful as a reader, just as redlinks are. We might need to think about exactly how to distinguish, but readers would soon learn a new convention. HLHJ (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Fringilla (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, we already have a gadget that can highlight disambiguation links. T. Le Berre, the french serpent à plumesTry and talk to me buddy 01:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support, I'm supporting this on the assumption that implementation will focus on solving the problem in a modern and user-friendly manner, and not merely implement the disruptive workflow currently hinted at in the comments. --Krinkle (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support :JarrahTree (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Supporttyseria 10:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Rzuwig 11:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wikipedia is about the reader, and it needs to be easy to read and coherent in order to get the information across to the reader. I believe that wikilinks are the backbone of wikipedia, and when clicked, it should bring you to the article you expect, not a disambiguation page. This policy would provide an easy way for editors to recognize disambiguation page links, and alter them to send the reader to the proper page. JazzClam (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I was a strong support until I saw 1) this is do-able on a per-user JS basis and, 2) saw that this could introduce friction for novice editors. EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mykola7 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit 'macros'

  • Problem: I observe this on en.wikipedia, but it is likely everywhere. On en.wikipedia certain mainspace tags get a date. So if one adds {{fact}}, a bot follows up and changes it in {{fact|date=November 2019}}. That results in a second edit, sometimes conflicting with your follow-up edit.
  • Who would benefit: globally
  • Proposed solution: I suggest to write create the possibility to have 'macros', that result in pre-safe modification of the addition of {{fact}} and automatically adds the |date={{{CURRENTMONTH}}} {{{CURRENTYEAR}}}
    Obviously, it needs to be namespace-limited, and probably be handled by a protected page so that you don't get the vandal-addition of abusive macros. And one could consider to have a pre-save check there as well ('Wikipedia executed the following macro(s) on your written text: <list of macros>. Please [accept] or [reject] the changes made by the macro(s).', upon which the page is really saved).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


  • {{subst:}} with a suitable template can already be used to achieve this. --Dominic Z. (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dominic Z.: If you talk only about templates, maybe. But there are also cases like 'ISBN #######' ('magic word') which on en.wikipedia is by bot replaced with {{ISBN|#######}}. I maybe should have been clearer in that above. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Some templates, when the parameter "time" is mandatory, coulde include the nowadays date and time by default.--BoldLuis (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • en:Wikipedia:AutoHotkey can be used as partial solution to this. --Papuass (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shoeper (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ponor (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 03:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support No such user (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Magol (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support JPxG (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Szczot3k (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Helemaal als dit kan voorkomen dat botjes die bij het toevoegen van zo'n datum ook andere, ongerelateerde en niet altijd oncontroversiële bewerkingen doen ("meenemen"), waarbij bijvoorbeeld de "onderwatercode" naar hun persoonlijke smaak wordt ingericht. Wutsje (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support DGG (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support as proposer. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose We have bots for a reason. The fact that they do stuff, and it involves edits, is a given, not a problem. If you're tired of seeing bot edits in your watchlist, turn them off. This is not something MW devs should waste any resources on.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    That's not a solution: We still don't see the interesting edit. (It might be a solution if the Watchlist simply displayed the last change matching the filter.) ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support because it's silly to not see the actual meaningful change. (See discussion above.) ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support PeacefulJack (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't support the proposed solution, because I think it wastes human time, but I do support attempts to solve this problem. Being edit-conflicted by a bot is silly, and it occurs and annoys me with some frequency; mostly Anomiebot is the one that edit-conflicts me (I appreciate the automatic adding of the date, just not the edit conflict). A simpler solution might be to have the editing interface silently roll back any bot edits which would otherwise edit-conflict a non-bot editor, and notify the bot. Or just have AnomieBot wait until the manual editor has stopped editing for an hour. HLHJ (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Allow past edits to be filtered by size

  • Problem: Records of edits, whether in page history, recent changes patrol or user edit history are often crowded by relatively insignificant minor edits, making it difficult to find edits that have made more substantial changes and therefore require greater scrutiny.
  • Who would benefit: Editors interested in reviewing major changes to Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: Enable records of edits to be filtered by the size of the change (by specific number characters added or removed).
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


  • This would be handy. I often want to find just the major contributions while looking at my watchlist or at an article's history. Abductive (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How about merging all recent edits by the same editor into one, and then showing diffs (each edit in different color, perhaps)? I assume most edits are good; if one is bad, you go back and check one by one. Ponor (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • See also Miscellaneous/Add filters to history pages. the wub "?!" 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Changes that are small in size are not necessarily minor in content. Sneaky vandalism or falsification can radically change content with a zero-byte change. Nurg (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Une modification peut être désignée comme mineure ou apparaître comme mineure (1 lettre, 1 mot changé, voire une ponctuation) et pourtant, être du vandalisme ou une modification importante à vérifier. Cdmt' --Mylenos (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Neutral Neutral I genuinely fail to understand how that feature will be useful to anyone. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jax MN (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 04:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Xinbenlv (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support P40fA (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Neutral}} vs {{oppose}} (n'écrivant qu'en mode visuel, je ne sais pas écrire "contre" en code - Mylenos (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment @Mylenos: Veux-tu que je t'aide? Si tu es contre quelque chose, tu peux utiliser {{oppose}} MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Merci Mario. (Voilà encore un problème rencontré par les contributeurs du mode visuel ; et je ne sais pas écrire le petit "+" vert. Pas grave.) Cordialement' - Mylenos (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Would help to save time in monitoring Jjkorff (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Drernie (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Toom0007 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support TheLatentOne (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes, but as one of several better filtering options, like by user, by section edited, by string/regex in the edit, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support RanuKanu (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support רון18 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support If there was an option, then of course the usage of Wikipedia would become more versatile and handier. Thanks! JN Dela Cruz (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support but I think we may need to think about UI design, and not simply filter by text size change. This ties into other proposals for better diffs like Better diff handling of paragraph splits and Copy and paste from diffs. I recall a tool by Wikimedia Deutschland which had an excellent visual interface for choosing diffs. If you are interested in ANY large edits, the Listen to Wikipedia visualization has actually been useful. HLHJ (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support EEMIV (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Make insertable markup customizable

  • Problem: List of markups to insert (insertable wiki markup) is currently limited too much
Currently, there are 36 predefined markups (insertable wiki markup) at the bottom of the page (in the 2010 editor), and you only need to click on one of these to insert it in the article (examples from Wikipedia in French: [[Catégorie:]] [[Fichier:]] [[Media:]] [[Spécial:Diff/]] [[Spécial:Contribs/]] #REDIRECTION [[]] · [[commons:|]] [[m:|]] [[n:|]] [[q:|]] [[s:|]] [[b:|]] [[wikt:|]] [[v:|]] [[d:|]] · <></> <code></code> <math></math> <small></small> <u></u> <ref></ref> <ref name=""></ref> {{Références}} <noinclude>, etc.
For example, I would like to be able to insert with one click the following code, which I would have customized myself, which takes a very long time to write in manual mode:
<ref>{{Ouvrage|auteur=|titre=|année=|éditeur=|tome=|page=|pages totales=|lire en ligne=|consulté le=}}</ref>
  • Who would benefit: Everyone
  • Proposed solution: It would be extremely useful to allow each user to create predefined markups (insertable wiki markup) and make them available in the already existing list in order to be able to insert them with a single click. It would be super fast!
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Tubamirum (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC) (French Wiki)


Sorry, my bad. I support this if you mean something like "own charinsert" Patsagorn Y. (Talk) 01:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tubamirum: I've written such script for Ukrainian wikipedia (uk:MediaWiki:Gadget-ImprovedEditTools.js), it has edit dialog and serializes your insertions to this format: uk:User:AS/AStools.js. The only drawback is that it has to use your subpage as data storage, because Mediawiki devs can't add local metadata for years. I think it would make sense to have native solution with proper backend storage and plugins support. AS (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@AS: your tool is very intresting. Another option could be saving them on the device via ValeJappo【〒】 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Nah, localStorage is not persistent enough for some use cases. AS (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This and Tool for easy user buttons should probably be merged. They're essentially same task, the difference is only which controls on page you want to bind with your insertion functions. AS (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tubamirum: Try Using AutoHotKey macros to make typing – and life – easier (other, similar, tools are available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is basically the same as "Tool for easy user buttons" (below), just without the button. Both are fine. Either one needs to happen yesterday. Don't particularly care which. --Joalbertine (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support That would definitely be far more convenient for editors to be able to just paste a long string of code than write all that code just to get the same effect. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support AS (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kisnaak (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support No such user (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Green fr (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support very important; there are workarounds for some parts of this, but a built in feature would be much better DGG (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wedhro (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gufosowa (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I actually like this version better than the one way up above, to allow customizable buttons (since this version doesn't require any icons).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support GiFontenelle (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Lt2818 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Joalbertine (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shenme (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Allow editors to write an edit summary from the edit preview

  • Problem: After making an edit, I view a preview of the newly edited page before I describe what I've changed. Then, in the preview, there is no place to describe what I've changed before publishing unless I go back, which is a bit clumsy.
  • Who would benefit: Page editors and trackers of changes
  • Proposed solution: Add a "Describe what you changed" text box to the top of the preview edit page next to "Publish changes" so that is is easily visible and easily accessed.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: BenJenkins (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


This would be useful, I like the idea. I've been keeping notes in a separate editor. A little notebook could even be there while we're editing: done with a chapter, enter changes, continue to the next one. Ponor (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd even go one further: With the addition of this functionality, it would then become desirable if we could choose an alternative workflow: Preview First, Preview Always. (Perhaps selected via an editing preferences checkbox, like "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" or our old, departed friend "Mark all edits minor by default".)
With the option enabled, an edit could progress from the editor interface, directly to Preview (including edit-summary field), and finally submitting the edit directly from the Preview view — never even seeing the redundant, unnecessary "Save your changes" popup.
We're always reminding our fellow editors "WP:TWWPK", and admonishing new Wikipedians whose edits are reverted that they need to Use The Preview™[, Luke?] (There's even a dedicated user warning template for that exact purpose.) The ultimate adherence to that philosophy would be (optionally) telling the system that you want to always preview every edit, automatically, before the option to submit is even presented. -- FeRDNYC 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Preview first is already an option though.... --Izno (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: How so? "Show preview on first edit" is still a checkbox in the Editing preferences, but as far as I can tell it does nothing for either of the Visual Editor's modes. (Visual editing mode doesn't have a Preview at all, only Review, so I guess it's not really relevant to any of this.) But in the wikitext mode, even with the preference switched on "Publish changes..." still takes you to the "Save your changes" popup, and you have to manually hit "Show preview" to preview the edit. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, you don't need a preview in VE. But okay, the context for your comment is good since it wasn't clear you were talking about 2017 WTE. :) --Izno (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't tell if this is for VE or for WTE, but I'd take it for wikitext editor in a heartbeat! --Izno (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The proposer uses the 2017 wikitext editor (VisualEditor's wikitext mode). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have the "alert me if I don't use an edit summary" preference checked, and whenever I do this (which is pretty much every edit) it takes me back and tells me to put an edit summary in. Certainly not an airtight solution, and I would like to see your suggestion implemented. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is phab:T140451 and/or phab:T148297. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, (temporary) Edit Summary should not be lost when switching between Visual Editor & Source Editor. RavBol (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I've just lost another Edit Summary after switching between Visual Editor & Source Editor on mobile, again...! RavBol (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Huh? Is this specific to the mobile version, or VisualEditor, or ...? I don't have this problem. I load the page to edit, and I already have an "Edit summary:" line. I click "Show preview", and I now have a preview, and the edit window again, and the "Edit summary:" line again. There is no need to go back.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Markdown syntax to wiki link conversion gadget

  • Problem: I frequently add new web citations via firefox extensions such as Markor. apk and haven't found any link capture application that outputs link to Clipboard as wiki-text.
  • Who would benefit: Markdown citeweb user
  • Proposed solution: A new /user.js + /user.css toggle and or extension.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: N/A: If only user-javascript without needing any other than simple documentation.
  • Proposer: Mkouklis(2) (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


  • There's some future where this will be possible directly on the wiki, but of course that day is not today. Would be a neat thing to have a converter today of course, but I'm not sure of the practicality or driving need. --Izno (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you link the tool you use? It's unclear to me what difficulty you're describing. If you are looking to generate web citations from webpages and convert to wikitext, you can use Zotero, which has many translators for specific websites. Different wikis have tools based on Citoid, which uses Zotero's translators to generate citations for the Visual Editor. Sounds like you're looking for that? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Zotero will also auto-retrieve and format metadata like title, authors, etc.. On-wiki, Citoid does the same. Can you explain how this differs from what you are looking for, Mkouklis(2)? HLHJ (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Why not? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Xinbenlv (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Петър Петров (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Szczot3k (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Strong support Having markdown support would be great -- and will be much better than the VE or the 2017 editor. acagastya 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shisma (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support S8321414 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Include "This is a minor edit" box in mobile editing

  • Problem: When one edits a page in mobile view using the MobileFrontend extension, no checkbox is provided for marking the edit as a minor edit.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone
  • Proposed solution: When editing a page in mobile view, include the "This is a minor edit" box.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T123694
  • Proposer: GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Why? I mean, I think there have been more calls to remove the 'minor edit' than to add it to mobile, where it almost never applies anyway just based on how much vandalism happens from mobile. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if not supporting the feature for a subset of mobile users (seems like it's partially supported) is a good approach, though. If it's not being removed from MediaWiki, I think it makes sense to properly support it on mobile (especially given that it's apparently available in the mobile visual editor). Perhaps it could be hidden with CSS on a case-by-case basis, or the ability to mark edits as minor could be a separate user right if it is/becomes a major problem for vandalism. Hazard-SJ (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've noticed this missing. Yes, lots of vandalism happens from mobile, but discriminating against users by platform doesn't seem appropriate. I'd like to see this done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who enjoys making gnomic/minor edits, and who sometimes edits on a mobile device, I like this idea. Noahfgodard (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 to this! --Slashme (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should be consistent across platforms. The mobile editing interface needs much improvement. Lots of vandalism may happen on your particular project on mobile, but it's the only way many people in developing countries have access to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI The minor checkbox appears in the mobile visual editor. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support Imetsia (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gabrasca (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ok, good idea شادي (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support PianistHere (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support SupportBilorv (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BugWarp (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 01:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I use MobileFrontEnd extension to make some gnome edits, and I think the "This is a minor edit" box would be useful. Sashatrk (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support P40fA (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mbkv717 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Opalzukor (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kettchaap (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support No such user (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Danbloch (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Brewster239 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Zoizit (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BladeRikWr (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support dwf² (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support - yona B. (D) 07:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support  Swazmo DiscBlanco.svg DiscWikiP.svg 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support StringRay (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support DemonDays64 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wanax01 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ivanics (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think adding this makes sense for feature parity, especially since it is already being shown in some cases on mobile. Hazard-SJ (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- the wub "?!" 18:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Dan100 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support SeGiba (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vacant0 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Mohanad Kh Talk 06:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support PinkPanda272 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support this, and also feature-parity for edit summaries. Pelagic (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support JN Dela Cruz (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support, if it's useful on one platform it's useful on both. And it seems more likely that a mobile edit will be minor, given the interface discourages typing at length. HLHJ (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anomlia (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Malvinero10 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Supporttyseria 10:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support EEMIV (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Schniggendiller (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Baidax 💬 17:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Select templates by categories

  • Problem: When contributors try to add templates to a page in visual editor or wikitext editor, we have to remember the accurate full name or prefix of the template.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone who want to add templates but don't know the accurate templates names.
  • Proposed solution: In most of wikis, templates were classified into categories by purpose and functions. We can add a templates browser to visual editor and wikitext editor, allowing contributors to browse and select templates by categories.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T55590
  • Proposer: Steven Sun (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


  • This is phab:T55590. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll support this if it will work just by using existing categories. Developing a whole new template classification and search feature would be a bad idea until a full-fledged Global templates repository is implemented. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


List of nested templates

  • Problem: When editing template, I can see on the bottom other templates used by this template, but only these, which are not nested in some {{{#if:}}.
  • Who would benefit: Template editors, and people who want to copy a template to another wiki.
  • Proposed solution: Search template for all{{foo}} which does not begin with # and are not in commonts.
  • More comments: The same for modules (here with require)
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: JAn Dudík (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)



  • Support Support This feature needs an overhaul. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 03:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support NMaia (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Meiræ 21:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Rdyornot (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Wikibenchris (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Definitely. Debugging complex templates is a massive headache, in large part because "walking the entire tree" of what they can do is a totally manual process, and it need not be.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Kku (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support PrimaLInnstinct (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Golmore (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Add global LaTeX macros for math in math tags

  • Problem: Certain math symbols, such as absolute value and expected value, are very tedious to type and make editing more cumbersome and error-prone.
  • Who would benefit: Anyone who types lots of math equations and uses proper symbols for spacing (ex. not just using pipe character for absolute value).
  • Proposed solution: A community-decided global list of macros enabled for anyone using math tags.
  • More comments: For example, if it is declared globally \DeclarePairedDelimiter\abs{\lvert}{\rvert}, then editors may type \abs{x} instead of \lvert x \rvert. Similarly for expected value, editors would avoid typing \operatorname{E} all the time. I proposed this last year at\operatorname_macros%3F where it got some interest and positive reception, though ultimately not implemented.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Wqwt (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


@Wqwt: you might be interested in joining Wikimedia Community User Group Math. There are several possibilities:

  • MathJax which we use to generate the formulas offers this possibility to define macros [1]. The problem with this is that unfortunately we do not use MathJax out-of-the-box but still have the setup (state-of-the-art 10 years ago), where people get delivered images of equations. Each formula is treated separately, which makes it impossible to have features other websites (like math.stackexchange you mention in village-pump) offer, i.e. macro definitions valid for several equations, cross-referencing equation numbers, automatic line-breaking and for me most annoying: Adjusting the math font properly to the text font.
  • Then, we have a list of global declarations already. They were defined in a pre-processing step called "texvc" which was needed when LaTeX was used to generate the images. Unfortunately some of the (re)definitions done in this pre-processing break any LaTeX document. We try to get rid of them so you can offer a LaTeX packet [2] and a corresponding MathJax packet [3] to render all Wikipedia equations with LaTeX or MathJax without the need for any pre-processing. Those macro definitions unfortunately do not contain useful things currently, e.g. in Wikipedia you can write \isin (like the html entity name) instead of \in or my personal favorite: You can write \varcoppa if you want to print \mbox{\\coppa}
  • I am not entirely against adding unproblematic definitions that are actually useful to this texvc package. However for pretty much all set of macros that people consider generally useful there are existing LaTeX packages. The \abs command you mention is part of the physics package [4] (and possibly others) in LaTeX and for this physics package there is also an equivalent MathJax package [5]. Unfortunately currently we do not include the physics package. Including such a package is very simple you want to do it on your own website. Unfortunately we in Wikipedia still have some remnants of texvc floating around where you have to try to teach it the behavior of all new macros so it does not reject or wrongly modify your code and secondly we are unfortunately not running the current version MathJax3, but the old MathJax2 and I am not entirly sure if the whole functionality of the physics package is also available in the old version.

@Physikerwelt: is of the very few volunteers, if not the only one, maintaining the math extension. There are plans to switch to MathJax3 and HTML rendering, he can probably tell more.--Debenben (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Just a side remark. I personally am in favour of keeping the the approach to maintain a whitelist of allowed commands and to automatatically reformat LaTeX code to a standard format, w.r.t, to spacing and standard arguments. Adding new commands is thus independent of MathJax 2/3 which will primarily improve the rendering as described above. This being said, you or someone with basic programming skills can propose new aliases by extending this list: Note, that this will be availible to all wikis in all languages and all projects. Thus these additions should be very conservative. Moreover, the consensus on the changes by the Wikimedia Community User Group Math is required. --Physikerwelt (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Physikerwelt: Thank you for taking the time to answer and I am afraid it sounds ungrateful for all the work you have been doing over all the years, but I feel like can not leave your statement here without answer.
Maybe something changed that I am unaware of, but to my understanding texvcjs still tries to "validate" the expression. Consider e.g. the request for the \middle command task T137788. There is no reason to not support it, it does not need to be defined and would be supported already if texvc would not block it. In the ticket you say "a skilled nodejs programmer with a good understanding of a parser [...] should be able to implement it in two days." Just for this one command! There would be about 96 commands like this in the physics package.
Validating LaTeX without parsing the whole expression is like validating c++ code without compiling it. With the normal definitions "\sigma" is valid, "\color{blue}" is valid, "\color{\sigma}" is not. To determine if "\color{\sigma}" is valid you need to know the definition of \sigma, evaluate it, feed the result to the \color command and see if it can handle the input. This macro expansion is done in Mathjax already, why replicate it? You could simply go through the list of commands [6] and not load the packages and commands you don't want, that needs less than 2 days.
And the argument with spaces I also don't understand: Very often editors put unnecessary spaces and linebreaks in the code on purpose to improve readability. If you really need them removed, you can take MathJax and convert LaTeX->MathML->LaTeX which also takes less than 2 days. Note that the original form is more valuable, it contains the same information as the "validated" expression and additional information to improve readability of the source code which is lost in the conversion.--Debenben (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


Tool for easy user buttons

  • Problem: Users can make their own buttons for better editing, which insert to edit area some templates, parts of code or patterns.

    This can be done by editing user javascript page. But majority of users is not skilled enough to make these buttons, only some of them copy it from other users, but when some problem occurs, they are not able to repair it.

  • Who would benefit: Editors
  • Proposed solution: Make some extension, where every user can easily make his own buttons.
    Tool can be based on User:Krinkle/Scripts/InsertWikiEditorButton.js. There will be table in the special:preferences
active name text before cursor text after cursor picture tooltip
X coord {{Coord|lat |lon|}} Button Globe.png Coordinates
X hello Hello world Button bienvenido.png insert hello world
O speedy {{Delete}} Button tidyman.png nominates for deletion
X char ʘ Ping button.png some weird character
  • Values from table will be copied to script (with escaping problematic characters) by tool and user can easily make another buttons without care about script changes or about malicious script.
  • More comments: originally proposed in 2019 survey
  • Phabricator tickets:T136152
  • Proposer: JAn Dudík (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


  • @JAn Dudík: The #5 wish of the 2017 Wishlist was the Template Wizard. Are all the insertions that you're thinking of with these custom buttons related to inserting templates? If so, does the template wizard suffice? I guess the big difference is that the user has to know what the template is called because they need to search for it in the wizard, but the other functionality seems to be there, along with a good interface for inserting particular parameters etc. —Sam Wilson 10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It is probably not the same. My proposal is about buttons, which can insert any string, either{{Template foo|with parameters}} as lorem ipsum or . Somebody uses it for inserting single characters (eg. some ligatures in wikisource, ipa chars on wiktionary etc.), somebody for article skeleton, somebody for template. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wanted to come up with a similar proposal. This would be really useful. Another point is that the bad code is often copied over many JS pages making these codes inefficient. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This proposal reminds me of an older feature request to allow the definition of a number of scrap-macros in preferences by inserting user-definable keywords (like @mymacro1@) into the wiki markup which would be expanded according to their definition by the frontend when pressing "save". For users of visual frontends, such keywords could be dropped into the source by buttons or hotkeys, so it would work regardless of the way a user edits a page. (See [[7]]) Is this about what you want to accomplish as well? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Not exactly. if I write @coord@, I am not able to add parameters. And there is no difference between @coord@ and {{subst:User/mytemplate}}. With button I can easily insert to text empty template {{Coord||}} and only add values.
    Big pain of modern UI in many programs is ribbon menu, where are groups of tools and only one of them is active. But when I want use one or two tools in every group, i must permanently switch. In current wikitext editor is <nowiki> in one submenu, character t͡s in second and cite tools in third. ANd some more useful things are under textarea. But my user buttons are in the top, accesible from all submenus. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support Imetsia (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Doubtful It is doubtful This could be a convenient feature, but I am not sure whether it is important enough or not for Wikipedia right now since the buttons are used exclusively on user profiles. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Strong support There are contents (templates, patterns of wikicode...) that I add very often, as a patroller, and beeing able to easily customize my wikitext editor toolbar with buttons that insert customized patterns would be very usefull. — Jules Talk 23:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Ciao • Bestoernesto 04:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support 1Mmarek (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nehaoua (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support // Lollipoplollipoplollipop :: talk 05:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Omnilaika02 (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support SupportBilorv (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support BoldLuis (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Meiræ 21:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Robins7 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support DGG (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Podzemnik (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support This, or something like it (e.g. a custom drop-down menu in the editing tools below the editing window) would be super-badass.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  05:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes please! — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sultec (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Strong support OMG Yes! This would have saved me hours on Wikisource! (Proof-reading and styling, adding the same few templates over and over and over again!) Take my money! --Joalbertine (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Dick Bos (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Sphilbrick (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Would be useful. Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Iva (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support S8321414 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Better diff handling of paragraph splits

  • Problem: When an editor adds line breaks to split an existing paragraph, our diff viewer depicts the text as deleted and re-added rather than just repurposed. This makes it difficult to see what text changed between the two paragraphs.
  • Who would benefit: Editors and readers who view diffs of this fairly common type of edit
  • Proposed solution: Directly compare the text changes between the "deleted" text and the new paragraphs, similar to how this handled moved paragraphs
  • More comments: This is a perennial request with continued need. It ranked #13 in 2016, and it appeared in the 2019 wishlist if not elsewhere
  • Phabricator tickets: task T156439, task T7072
  • Proposer: czar 02:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


  • Support for this! Maybe they could internally do a sentence-by-sentence diff, i.e. put every sentence in a new line before running diff.
  • The improved diff view of wikEdDiff handles this case well. Certes (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. It is useful for all editors, but I think it would also help in-experienced editors become more comfortable with editing. The instant feedback such a function would give would be very nice. Mulstev (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Since wikimarkup treats a single line-break as a space, the diff tool should use both sections for the compare. If a line-break is removed two sections would be compared with the resulting single section. If a line break is added the original section would be compared with the resulting 2 sections. I would not suggest displaying every sentence as a new line; adding or removing periods would then have the same effect as adding or removing line-breaks. But it may be beneficial to increase the importance of sentence breaks in the diff. User-duck (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

For the English Wikipedia, I suggest you try wikEdDiff (it's in the gadgets). In my opinion a much better diff than the standard one in most cases. It does not replace the standard one, it's just in addition on the top. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Overlaps with WMDE Technical Wishes/Edit Conflicts.--Snaevar (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Support Support User-duck (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sagivrash (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I admit that's annoying. I believe it is a bug caused by how Mediawiki handles text. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Movses (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support Alpöhi (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree it's a common bug and we should fix it.--EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)