Announced on cawiki. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for everything.

Thanks!!

I think we should come up with an alternative to Javascript. We haven't gone any further and I think it is necessary. I find really interesting the magic word idea

I think we should fix this bugs that make wikitext dirty before users that won't revise the resulting code use this functionality.

I think a good icon for the action would be a checkmark. At least in cawiki is what we use for resolved topics

It's a good idea.

I was referring to the lock feature. In cawiki we are using it for resolved issues, to keep them for reference, so that no one makes edits. I was asking to hide this closed topics.

Another example here.

It would really be appreciated in wikipedia's sister projects to have a costumizable common templates dropdown as there is with the citation tool.

@Krenair Someone asked to enable in order to use the coordinates template in a trekking book. I don't see any inconvenient in doing so....

I could help maintaining those projects. I have no experience in wikivoyage but I think I could manage to help.

If there aren't any problems I'll submit the patch tomorrow. The community is aware that the Extension is in experimental phase.

Endavant!

I'll do it!

It would be great if you reached a consensus in the village pump and provided the link to it

Patch declined in gerrit

Sorry I'm having problems with unicode and I can't take this job until I solve them.

I'll submit the patch later on today if there aren't any objections.

Ok thanks for your advice. We will follow it. @Glaisher you can abandon the patch, thanks for your help anyway.

I'll submit the patch as soon as I can. Thanks for providing a more clear consensus.

It's not very clear that the link provided is a consensus. I understand that not many people see clear the activation.

@MarkTraceur It's true that uploadwizard is very commons-specific, but it can also work fine in other wikis (in rowiki for example, they are very happy with the extension)

I'm taking it. It would be great if you found more consensus.

@Snowolf,@Billinghurst: Summarising and translating what has been said in the Village Pump and on IRC: The community strongly feels that no more admins are needed and that there is no need in giving unnecessary buttons to users who won't use them because this users only want to help in the tech side, not with all the sysops jobs.
Added to all this, the community feels aggravated because they see that their consensus has no decision power at all because it gets blocked whenever it gets out of the wiki by rules they don't see written anywhere.

Now it works

@Billinghurst I was asking just in case. We don't want to happen this again.

I'll transfer this to the community's village pump.

@Snowolf from your point of view as a steward would you grant an admin flag to a user in a wiki that there is already an admin and there are only three active users? I think it's not necessary.

Community pettition / consensus: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna#Activaci.C3.B3_del_visualeditor_a_altres_espais_de_noms

I have been notified in a subpage of the namespace https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquiprojecte_Discussi%C3%B3:Viquirepte/500mil

@Glaisher I didn't know that the global Interface editor group existed. Maybe it would be easier if we would use this group...

Thank you!

Can I help with something?

@Glaisher Could you try to re-submit the patch with the name changed?

I see your point @Vogone if it works it's better not to change it. Although I think that if we plan the well renaming this souldn't bring up many bugs and would avoid future errors or confusions.

Here we have some data to start working with:

• I didn't recive Qgil's human ping (see above)
• Three out of the 6 pinged (in a page in ns103 but different form the one where we spotted the bug) have not received the ping, the other 3 have not answered yet.
• One person did receive a ping from this namespace the 8th of december 2014.

Well not really. But we don't want this to last for ages.

@Glaisher can we re-submit a patch with the group name of interface-editor instead of interface_editor or we have to wait to reach a conclusion in T85731 ? Thanks

I was wondering if the person who is actually making the mention is a bot, does this change something?

@Quiddity: I don't think there is a restriction in the code. I think that the mention feature in echo works for any talk page and ns103 is a talk namespace. Please correct me if I'm wrong.