Noting that the death of 1855 is obviously wrong when he married and had children after that date. I suspect it is meant to be 1885, to be confirmed at author talk page at enWS

example https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Anubis

It is primarily Beetstra's project which I support onwiki as a doer, and on the instances as a pair of arms. I don't think that it needs any further approval nor action than Beetstra's.

It would be lovely if all these pages could be migrated to a standard set of (reserved) NS numbers for ProofreadPage and have a redirect from the old to the new so that they old will continue to work while all tools are updated and issues resolved.

could we please rerun the xwiki report to see where we have issues to address? Thanks.

In T299880#7643843, @Samwilson wrote:

Yes, it seems to be suffering yet another flood of bots. I've rebooted it.

Looks like someone needs to reboot ws-export.wmcloud.org seems to be hung up on something

Not grok'ing this exactly, I will just view it in action. We should write good instructions, with all the appropriate caveats on the mediawiki guidance page. Thanks.

In T139557#7588151, @Izno wrote:

I'd say this wikitext is suspect since colons output invalid HTML as well as unsemantic HTML. These are not lists but paragraphs or similar I would guess. Some sort of {{block indent}} template would be appropriate instead.

@Aklapper Are we able to find someone to review this? This is a break stopping work that has a solution, and having to get people to do css fixes is less than ideal. Thanks.

As a note, I did go through something like
https://ta.wikinews.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=allmessages

@MusikAnimal guessing that the code for ProofreadPage, or the hooks for it, should be checked if it is just Page: namespaces

It also overrides my version of the old toolbar that I use (2006 toolbar that is gadgetified). The modern toolbar is highly ineffective for the Wikisource work where I am needing my customisation for quick and effective transcription and formatting work. This change is very impactful on productive work, almost to the point of needing to stop the relieve that aggravation.

Do we need to do anything in the task list for the creation of wiki space for any future Wikisources so that there does not have to be separate new site requests?

Some of these can be managed by metawiki's title blacklist. We already do that for numbers of prominent users, and would do that in this situation where duplicity is being attempted. Happy for a strings of regex to be provided to the talk page to achieve this, also noting that we have the antispoof ability there too.

It would be really nice if this got a bit of love. It is 13 years old, and with so many links being https by default it is becoming a pussy bedsore of a problem

Also noting that I had a similar issue with Pywikibot and its response in fail to login was equally confusing as it was talking about api changes for login with breaking changes. So it lead me off on a bit of a wild goose chase.

In T244346#7471013, @Aklapper wrote:

In T244346#6879277, @Izno wrote:

I'm pretty sure this is ancient T18371: Allow reference definitions to be included from other pages?

Do folks in this ticket agree?

Name: Thomas Charles Turberville
Gender: Male
Event Type: Birth
Birth Date: 2 Jun 1825
Birth Place: St Nicholas, Worcester, Worcestershire, England
Denomination: Baptist
Father: Thomas Turberville
Mother: Mary Turberville (formerly Daniell)

South Africa, Cape Province, Civil Deaths, 1895-1972. Salt Lake City, Utah: FamilySearch, 2013.
Name: Frank Selden Turberville
Gender: Male
Age: 79
Death Date: 25 Aug 1941
Death Place: Albany, Cape Province, South Africa
FHL Film Number: 4532652
@Charles_Matthews h

That happens from any filtered abuselog listing

Not certain whether there should be consideration of self-reupload and reupload. For the sake of AbuseFilters, that is not necessary as we can utilise page_first_contributor for those needs.

This one can be wiped from prep and output.

In T291390#7394953, @Gat_lombart wrote:

This is the "Community portal" ("Portal de la comunità" in lombard language) : https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/lmo/Wikizzionari:Portal_de_la_comunità), this is the "bar" https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/lmo/Wikizzionari:Bar. I hope there will be a link to them in the left menu.

In T291744#7378845, @JJMC89 wrote:

I suspect in practice, it has not been useful or relevant for a contributor on the site to "clear their cache" for any purpose at any time in relation to the MediaWiki software after 2011.

I haven't needed to clear my cache for anything where the clearyourcache message is used; however, I sometimes have needed to do it when I reupload media. (Recent example from another editor)

[current firefox browser]

time heals everything? worked a few days later

If it is too hard to do an automated process, then maybe we can have an advanced functionality, Either something were we can exclude a page name, or an intermediary page where we can grab all the pages into a list, and then checkbox them for inclusion, and allow the manual deselection of pages for exclusion. It is problematic at this time that many works are pretty much excluded. I have deleted half a dozen of uploads due to this issue.

Maybe was at the time, though still failing now.

@Omer_abcd this is a reason to also consider whether a filter should be public or private

In T260903#7332002, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Should this go in Tech/News as an advanced item, or should we just have people find out via user delight?

The Tablet
Brooklyn, New York
19 Jun 1926, Sat • Page 1

The Morning News
Wilmington, Delaware
18 Jul 1893, Tue • Page 2

I am still seeing plentiful spambots in the abuselog. so yes, little to no difference

We are again being hammered by spambots, and they are again clogging up the Abuselog despite them being blacklisted days or weeks ago. Could we please see if there could be implementation of the suggested change. There is nothing more despairing in doing the hard work to get controls in place and having to have abuselogs bombed with the spambots. Thanks.

I still think that it should just be easier to hide a problematic publicly viewable abuse report, that can be by deletion or setting an individual report to non-public. ~~~~

This has broken the Wikisources who were neither notified nor tagged. Bit ugly.

In T288191#7262083, @DannyS712 wrote:

Assuming this is due to the train, tagging as a blocker

Note that in the show changes display before saving it appears to substitute, but upon actually saving it doesn't.

In T288191#7262083, @DannyS712 wrote:

Assuming this is due to the train, tagging as a blocker

Note that in the show changes display before saving it appears to substitute, but upon actually saving it doesn't.

@Ninovolador In cases where there are endnotes in a chapter, I have done it two different ways, neither using "ref follow"

In T32597#4960338, @Dinoguy1000 wrote:

In T32597#4508325, @Izno wrote:

You could just as easily prepend "lst" to the name of the tag as in "lstsection", or something like "labeledsection" or "transcludedsection" (lengthiest name but I'm sure someone can come up with something else).

I don't know how much of a concern length would be; we already have syntaxhighlight, which is only three characters shorter than transcludedsection. I also like the above suggestions of includesection or sectioninclude to parallel includeonly et al, though I don't have any firsthand experience with LST so there might be valid non-length-related reasons for none of these names to be preferable.

Until someone analyses what is happening in the lint component for what is otherwise non-problematic code elsewhere, then who knows.

In T166138#7223790, @Xover wrote:

In T166138#7223586, @santhosh wrote:

Can that be solved by filing ticket to support WOFF2 in commons?

That would require a community RFC at Commons, and I am uncertain whether the Commons community would be inclined to expand their scope to include free fonts… partially because they would also need to "support" this, through patrolling, policies, tooling, etc. On Commons it would be fairly open-ended (vs. tightly controlled in ULS), so it would take significant community resources to deal with it.

I am not certain that this would require a community consensus of Commons. As I remember it, these restrictions have pretty much come from staff over the days. If push comes to shove. let us have the capacity to upload it to English Wikisource and everyone else can go and work out their own requirements, and when they do, then we can migrate it to Commons.

Is there more that needs to be done to get this undertaken? Any questions? Any problems. It seems a fairly simple request, has the consensus of our community as a needed group/role. Thanks.