But this file has margins around the edges, and I'm not sure that it is good.

What do you think about changing paddings?

In T219826#5109019, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Can this be also added in commons?

@Volker_E some questions about errorbox. It doesn't pass the test for color contrast. 1em != 14pt for Wikimedia projects. And I saw that the above was a proposal with black text, why was it decided to leave red? And where can I find this icon for an error, please tell me :)

@Volker_E Thanks!

@Volker_E, help:) What is the size of the border on these boxes? Because here, for example, it is different: T222848.

I sincerely apologize, but it's terrible. Why do you use so different lengths of fields for dates and labels? Why do you occupy all the space with a huge block, which is 3 times more than before, with a huge amount of empty space? Why do you make the "show" button the main one, when the main button is "compare versions"?

This color is too purple for me, and purple is not used since monobook. And you have never seen it in StyleGuide :) For example, we completely removed old purple colors from navboxes and other tables in Russian Wikipedia.

Maybe we can use a different color for <th>? For example: #eaf3ff. You can see some information here T167186.

I apologize, I most likely incorrectly told about the problem. It is impossible to guess whether the block is scrollable or not, in the constant chaos of the sources. It seems to me that it is necessary to use standard practices of displaying additional text.

Wow! That's cool, I think we need to tell about this update in the TechNews.

In T217148#4986401, @cmadeo wrote:

@Iniquity yes! We do need to do some clean-up and consistency.

Hi, @cmadeo :) Thanks for your answer.

In T214737#4944939, @JMinor wrote:

Translations are updated when we publish a new version. That should happen in the next week.

In T177596#4924100, @Nikerabbit wrote:

We have updated our statement of intent and maintenance levels. Main change was about reducing our scope which included degrading support for Babel. We also agreed to try out some internal process changes with regards to reviews.

I understand that this might not be what you expected from this update. Since this discussion is not directly related to this task, please post possible comments or questions about this update on the talk page or other relevant channels rather than on this task.

In T177596#4898069, @Nikerabbit wrote:

Not yet. January hasn't ended yet :)

I know this thing, I thought to allow renaming by default :) but I still have to think about it, the idea does not seem to me to be so sensible now.

Oh, my fail, I didnt know that this thing can renaming topics. Hm, can we allow renaming other people's topics then?

Thanks a lot :)

Oh, thanks a lot :)

@Volker_E hello :) can you check it please?

@Aklapper we need you :) Is it necessary to create gerrit repo or git repo is enough?

OK, thanks :) We are waiting for you :)

In T177596#4825409, @Nikerabbit wrote:

An update of the statement is planned for January 2019.

In T214291#4896351, @Aklapper wrote:

I admit I am reluctant to create projects in Phab for smaller on-wiki code projects as long as https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T121470 is not resolved. Communication to users where to report issues is pretty hard for on-wiki code. I'm very happy to do this though if there is a code repository in Git/Gerrit. :)

Oh, ok, I will talk to the main author about this :) However, in a short time, I think it will cease to be a local gadget.

@Aklapper hello:)

In T214199#4895352, @Sophivorus wrote:

@Iniquity, I will probably request a quick grant for this bot and the many other ProveIt requests that accumulated. Again, it may take some weeks, but we'll get there.

It is not so important. I think we can wait a bit:)

I think it was fixed :)

@Johan @Aklapper Thanks :)

@Johan, hello!:) Can you write anything about this update in the Tech News?

In T21322#4875190, @Bawolff wrote:

more that nobody is currently working on it

It is sad, these logs are really unreadable.

If it is difficult to change the scheme, then I think it is quite possible to create a DB (something like MediaWiki:Admin-bots) with users which we can to hide.

@Xaosflux Hmm, maybe we need to update the description of this task or update the name? It's not very clear what it is talking about.

Do I understand correctly that the task is resolved?

Wow, this is old problem. Any news?