Thank you @TheDJ for looking at this. I've done a little (very little!) testing and can confirm it appears to be working as intended. As a small side note, there does appear to be some minor layout and spacing issues. In both Safari and Chrome on MacOS.

Chiming in as another fan of Zebra #9. I like the solid distinction between article content and navigation/tools.

I updated the task description to follow the "feature request" format. I ended up here after coming across another Wikipedia article where a well-meaning editor added a single "small" GIF file to help illustrate a point. The size of the article was doubled by a single 421 × 237 GIF.

Adding a note. in iPadOS 14 the behavior appears to be different from what is described in the description. The content appears to work well in the desktop layout (skinny viewport limitations withstanding). While Apple has not released updated adoption rates since iPadOS 14 was released in September, this report indicates a 70% adoption rate of iPadOS 14.

I have not worked on this in quite some time. I did for a short while, but due to other commitments am unable to continue.

A reminder that the group photo is today at 13:30 (1:30 pm). If you’re willing to help lead the group photo please let me know here in the task. We can all meet a little before the time and lead folks to the location.

OK, so I did a little scouting this afternoon. I have a proposed location. Any interested photographers let's discuss, but if there are no objections here's the plan!

@Peb no indication, but that is a great idea. Maybe we can all meet somewhere today?

@Rfarrand My volunteer account is preferred, but either way it's still me. :)

Email sent (bcc'ed) to 40 volunteers this morning. 👋

I have a draft of the email I'll send to interested photographers up on Meta. I will send it out on 6 May.

I think 4 years and god knows how many newer version of IE is past the statute of limitations. :)

I too thought something was not working correctly with the site when I saw what to me was random German. While I think I get the gist of the design decision (we are proud of being multilingual and want to represent that) I find this to be distracting. It is not intuitive to me as a visitor that the design goals are being met by this decision.

The word “demand” has a harsh meaning where I come from. Let’s instead make a strong argument for the feature request with more voices. If others reading this are also stymied, please speak up.

Perhaps something has improved the in intervening time, but I can see the "Description" field in the project you mention @Aklapper.

After consulting with the admins on Commons the consensus appears to be to enable, but with caution.

We did discuss this, but I'm not drawing up any notes (only[[ http://livestream.com/internetsociety/emwcon/videos/124046484 | this video ]])

@RobLa-WMF I'm just a subscriber here, but was hoping the author's question would be addressed in some capacity. If not a phab task, then where can interested users of MediaWiki go to better understand the leadership of MediaWiki development?

That sounds like a pretty good plan. We should come up with a list of points to discuss at both venue's to keep things consistent and fair (and anything learned at EMWCon should be brought forth at Wikimania!).

We need a good reason to follow some external trend, it should not just be done blindly.

Sounds like a plan. How can I help?

Apologies for the delay, yet this was accomplished and published.

@ori mentioned in an IRC meeting a few weeks back if we could look at WikiApiary to see if we could determine if folks have left MediaWiki for other tools. @Krabina posted this on the Semediawiki-user mailing list (via @Nemo_bis on the wikiapiary-l list - it's mailing lists all the way down!). I though it might be worth sharing here.

I just got bit by this while helping some folks copy over existing information from a Word document.

@MikeHansenMe and @Ipstenu, could either of you help us discover touch-points the MediaWiki community could reach out to in decision making like this to reflect the usage in shared hosting environments (such as Bluehost and Dreamhost)?

In T118932#1834599, @Reedy wrote:

The long and short of it, for me, is that if someone cares enough about their MediaWiki install that they want to keep it upto date (great!), they should care enough to keep the rest of the stack up to date too. If their provider can't/won't help them in doing that, they should be considering why they are with said provider.

In T118932#1819151, @HappyDog wrote:

I don't think this is relevant.

@RichardHeigl You're right, we should publish the results for folks. Let me put something together and we can review.

This work is generally complete. We plan on presenting our findings at the Developer Summit. See T117193 for more information.

What subset of mediawiki functionality should get "Grade A" support for installs on lightweight shared hosting environments? Which extensions should that include?

@bd808 I'm going to out myself here.

I was reading an article about Wikipedia this morning and came across this quote.

What is MediaWiki? To many people it's just the core installation, sans any extensions or services. To me, it's all the extensions you need to use to make a truly functional wiki. Echo, ElasticSearch, Parsoid, VisualEditor, and more. In my opinion MediaWiki hasn't been able to run on shared hosting since the introduction of some of these core extensions. We should stop treating these vital extensions as add-ons instead of integral parts of the experience of using MediaWiki.

Without doing anything, grabbing the master repo from git and visiting a page with a <syntaxhighligh> tag I get the following error:

The more you know! Thanks @Legoktm.

I took a first pass at trying to make sense of the responses from the MediaWiki Users Survey from last month (July 2015). I'd appreciate feedback and suggestions.

@MarkAHershberger Do you think this is done for now? Do we want to gather further statistics? A small *chuckle* idea might be trying to figure out a way to automate the availability of this information for future analysis.

I could use some feedback on this task. We have over 130 responses to the recent MediaWiki Users Survey. We have published the data from that survey, but omitted any identifying information. Is that of any value or importance in furthering this task?

Now that we have completed the MediaWiki Users Survey @RichardHeigl and I are working on taking the survey results along with the existing wishlist and creating a single prioritized list.