Wiki.Melancholie wrote:

Further somewhat related requests:

• Bug 5210 ("preload parser should parse <noinclude> (as well as <includeonly>)")
• Bug 12853 ("Allow triple brace substitution on preload templates")

Has this extension ever been installed on any WMF wiki? I couldn't find any clue for that. Or are you requesting that this extension should be installed on de.wiktionary? If so, you should probably clarify this.

Wiki.Melancholie wrote:

Hmm, you seem to be right: [[wikt:de:Spezial:Version]].
But when preloading isn't done by this extension, how is it done?
Is preloading a core feature?

Example:
http://de.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Vorlage:Formatvorlage_Englisch_(Substantiv)&title=123

If preloading isn't depending [[mw:Extension:Preloader]], this bug should get a request for creating <nopreload> for core.

The point is that there should be a <nopreload> tag (like <noinclude>) available.

(In reply to comment #3)

Hmm, you seem to be right: [[wikt:de:Spezial:Version]].
But when preloading isn't done by this extension, how is it done?
Is preloading a core feature?

Yes, at least if you mean preloading by adding the preload= or preloadtitle= parameter to index.php. See [[mw:Manual:Parameters to index.php]]

If preloading isn't depending [[mw:Extension:Preloader]], this bug should get a
request for creating <nopreload> for core.

The point is that there should be a <nopreload> tag (like <noinclude>)
available.

IMHO the page should be loaded as if it was transcluded with {{subst:}}, i.e. instead of <nopreload> you could simply use <noinclude>. Changed the component and summary accordingly.

Wiki.Melancholie wrote:

Hmm, not sure whether people don't want to preload <noinclude> sections as well, sometimes.
Otherwise this bug would be a duplicate of bug 5210 now, see comment #2.

Wiki.Melancholie wrote:

... comment #1 ;-)

Wiki.Melancholie wrote:

Ah, no I remember, this actually is an issue of http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:InputBox on Wikimedia wikis, of course ;-)

(In reply to comment #5)

Hmm, not sure whether people don't want to preload <noinclude> sections as
well, sometimes.

This could still be done with <<noinclude/>noinclude> or something.

Otherwise this bug would be a duplicate of bug 5210 now, see comment #2.

Right. ;)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 5210 ***