Please refer to this discussion on enwiki.
Wed, Apr 17
Stalled. Though probably this is Invalid as it still works for me like in this diff.
Tue, Apr 16
Mon, Apr 15
Sat, Apr 13
Have known this issue for a while. The workaround is to click and hold the lock icon until menu appears. Then choose to open the page in a new tab, that will show the source text. But it'd be great to fix this.
Thank you too.
Fri, Apr 12
Thu, Apr 11
Yes, that's an alternative. You've to open a bug report here on phabricator. See example of similar request: T216333
In T220299#5095845, @Grigor_Gatchev wrote:
Do you believe that such a change can be up for consideration at all? (If yes, I'd open a task, but if not, I'd rather avoid what would effectively amount to empty trolling.)
It will surely be considered, that's a valid request, but see below.
Wed, Apr 10
Tue, Apr 9
@Amorymeltzer In what proper circumstance can I add [[User:Amorymeltzer| Amorymeltzer]] ([[User talk: Amorymeltzer|talk]]) in my custom signature and then sign discussions with it? I think this is crystal-clear disruption or NOTHERE as they say it and would result in immediate blocking.
Please provide a way for them to be on one line like they were hitherto. There's enough space for more than that. Alternatively provide a way to hide the box entirely.
Mon, Apr 8
This looks reasonable, but this task is not for changing the status quo. If you want change it, please open a separate task.
If you mean linking to other sites, eg. Wikipedia, that can be easily done on need by a bot, through a word-article matching algorithm.
I said internal link (aka wikilink). That's links within bg.wikinews that are made with four square brackets like [[Земя]]. Linking to Bulgarian Wikipedia requires use of 'interwiki link.'
Do you think that it would be proper to do it?
Well, only the local community can say whether it's proper or not.
Sun, Apr 7
I took a random sample of 20 pages and I found they have no single internal link (wikilink); they are just plain text. Therefore this may not be an error. @Grigor_Gatchev are you aware that a content page is only counted if it contains at least one internal link? And can you confirm there are more than 66 pages in main namespace that contains such links?
Hi @Oshwah. I cannot reproduce this. I am seeing the "(No difference)" text correctly. Can you confirm you can still reproduce this?
@WhitePhosphorus, I was busy somewhere else and no one merged it. It'll hopefully be deployed next week.
Fri, Apr 5
Tue, Apr 2
Mon, Apr 1
This has nothing to do with Japanese characters, it's mobile "Special:Contributions" page issue. Consider removing &target= and replace it with /.
This will be resolved by T122305: [EPIC] Make Special:Contributions in core mobile friendly
Sun, Mar 31
Sat, Mar 30
The outer pair of parentheses are generated by pseudo elements. The inners ones are in the message. May be they need to be removed.
I can't reproduce it either on my computer normal screen size. But it does happen when I zoom the window. It also depends on the size of page.
Fri, Mar 29
Thu, Mar 28
Tue, Mar 26
I think this has been resolved. Now copying change-id does exactly what it should.
Thank you @ArnoldReinhold. Actually the text of the upper right box already has a separate message, MediaWiki:Wikibase-rc-wikibase-edit-legend but it was not defined. So the one for the tooltip was transcluded there. I will attempt the simple fix of defining it since both messages can be styled differently.
Fri, Mar 22
Mar 22 2019
The source message does not have that markup, apparently because it was meant to be plain text. The message was customized to use template on en.wiki to add underlining. So please ask them to either remove that template or completely delete the message so as to fallback to default.
Mar 21 2019
Mar 20 2019
Mar 19 2019
Mar 18 2019
I think I can do this.
Mar 17 2019
Rendered invalid by T12331: Introduce page creation log
Yes, I think this has been asked at English Wikipedia's village pump but no one seem to have created a phab ticket.
Mar 16 2019
@JamesBond.007, no that's not what I mean. As you can see from the closure label, this task is a duplicate, meaning the same thing has been requested before (T26070 T199634) and to consolidate efforts, anyone can close a task that's substantially similar to existing one.
This task (as written) is unlikely to be ever acted upon. And BTW it has been requested in T26070 and elsewhere, there's no point of keeping this open.
Mar 15 2019
Mar 14 2019
I will submit a patch for this.