[00:41:45] <Katie>	 I still don't really buy the need for a new syntax.
[00:43:55] <bawolff>	 If it happens, this will be the first major new syntax in like a decade
[00:44:20] <bawolff>	 err, maybe since #tag. I think that's like 1.15
[00:47:44] <James_F>	 bawolff: Depends if the media transclusion changes happen first.
[00:48:03] <bawolff>	 which media transclusion change?
[00:48:27] * bawolff was always disapointed that {{media:Foo.png}} isn't how we embed files. It would make so much logical sense
[00:50:42] <Katie>	 #media:
[00:51:06] <Katie>	 We should prefix parser functions with "#" because it makes life easier, or something.
[00:51:23] <bawolff>	 In this case, #media doesn't make sense because it wouldn't really be a parser function
[00:51:50] <Katie>	 Yeah, maybe.
[00:51:51] <bawolff>	 [[media:Foo.png]] links directly to an image. {{media:Foo.png}} would make sense for directly transcluding the image
[00:52:05] <Katie>	 Why not {{File:Foo.png}}?
[00:52:16] <bawolff>	 Because that transcludes the file description page!
[00:52:24] <Katie>	 Right, but that's never what anybody wants.
[00:52:27] <Katie>	 Ever.
[00:52:48] <bawolff>	 I think the # sign thing was so stuff wouldn't conflict with template names, and interwiki links
[00:52:57] <bawolff>	 Well nobody wants a lot of things we do
[00:52:57] <Katie>	 Right, it's rudimentary namespacing.
[00:53:11] <Katie>	 Category syntax is also dumb.
[00:53:37] <bawolff>	 What's really dumb is [[File:Foo.png]] when Foo.png is 10000000x100000 pixels big
[00:53:54] <bawolff>	 literally nobody ever wants that, and its the easiest to type case
[00:54:57] <Katie>	 We could implement an implicit max size.
[00:55:19] <Katie>	 Or make thumb the implicit default...
[00:55:35] <Katie>	 Not sure any of this would improve the overall situation.
[01:22:33] <James_F>	 bawolff: #file was my sugggestion, yes.
[01:22:51] <James_F>	 bawolff: But lots more changes than just that.
[01:22:54] <bawolff>	 oh, this is an actual plan?
[01:23:03] <bawolff>	 Is there a phab ticket I could read?
[01:23:15] <James_F>	 Somewhere.
[01:23:19] <James_F>	 There's an RfC and everything.
[01:24:23] <James_F>	 bawolff: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90914
[01:25:55] <bawolff>	 thanks
[01:28:00] <James_F>	 bawolff: Also, eventually we'd want to not just discourage but actually break the old syntax, for sanity. Your thoughts on that migration in particular would be welcome.
[01:28:33] <bawolff>	 my thought is that breaking back-compat in wikitext seems unlikely to happen
[01:28:50] <bawolff>	 Has anyone ever broken back compat for a major part of wikisyntax before?