Mentioned at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Captions/Structured_data_licensing

This is done

In T213462#4892496, @Yann wrote:

@Keegan As I said above, there is a very simple fix: force page reload after editing captions.

In T213462#4875706, @Yann wrote:

@Jdforrester-WMF Hotcat worked very well until the Captions were added. The issue could be solved forcing a page reload after editing Captions.

Logs: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2019-01-10

In T213040#4867765, @Tgr wrote:

The upload form tends to be heavily scripted even on normal wikis, and Commons have their homegrown UploadWizard alternative plus the system of abusing language codes for upload types... so it's definitely a big deal in the sense that it requires a bunch of gadgets to be re-tested, and requires a feature flag exposed as an URL parameter so people can meaningfully test it. I guess that should also alleviate concerns about what comes from where, because you can just check the old UI.

Is there a timeframe for pushing the conversion out?

In T212176#4830766, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

Oh, right, now I understand the concern you have. Yes, this different display is because the Commons community has customised its AbuseFilter error messages to look like this (though they look slightly worse given the context), and Beta Commons has a copy of these hacky templates and styling (whereas the Labs instance is running vanilla MediaWiki).

If you want to get rid of these, you'll need to convince the Commons community that that's a good idea, and either we build an entirely parallel set of messages for WBMI (eurgh) or the Commons community drops their current over-rides of these messages (for both WBMI and wikitext editing), which I imagine they'd be loathe to do.

Not sure where to go with this. @Keegan will definitely have views.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Statements_2

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2018-11-01

No real workflow to follow here.

We did these things

In T182672#4644995, @Elitre wrote:

This task was about " the first six months of 2018" and 3 specific types of change.
Let's update accordingly? TY!

Village pump, email, MassMessage, and WIkidata updates left.

Consultation is up at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Search_prototype

@kaldari No translation, but the problem ran deeper. The wiki is dead with no identifiable active discussion space. They have no village pump, the Main Page talk page is a red link, and no other centralized communication center could be found. Usually when this happens I find the most active user and tell them, but ps.wikivoyage doesn't even have any active users. I think it's safe to say we can remove the extension without harming the community.

Log:

Everything is quiet on the small wikis with the exception of Italian, who have a question about what to do with the seven user pages that they have in RelatedSites. https://it.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Lounge#RelatedSites

We did this.

Too broad in scope.

This task is too broad in scope to really function. I'll make new tasks for tool work as they come up.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Statements

In T201536#4557474, @Niharika wrote:

Thanks @Keegan! Should we keep this ticket open for a while in case we get responses/questions about this?

Posted everywhere except ps.wikivoyage, for the life of me I couldn't figure out the best place. Usually if a village pump is absent we post on the talk page of the main page, but even that is a red link there...

@Niharika bumped the translator request for one more round, I only have hi, fr, it. I'll post with what I have on Tuesday regardless.

We're all done here.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Properties_table

In T201536#4489196, @Niharika wrote:

Awesome, thanks.

One last thing - should we also inform English Wikivoyage about it? I think they've known about it for a while now and have taken out most of the links themselves.

Wrote up a message:

Over two weeks, no reply for Portuguese Wikivoyage. It's a project we'd have to do ourselves. Closing out this task.

In T190233#4494887, @Keegan wrote:

Contacted Eran: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9F#Commons_Deletion_Bot

In T194226#4495448, @Niharika wrote:

@Keegan For this task, I asked people to reach out to us using the project talk page. I am thinking we should send out a mass message to all the voters of this wish to let them know this is ready to go. Thoughts?

Contacted Eran: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9F#Commons_Deletion_Bot

Ha, great, thanks.

In T190233#4493030, @Niharika wrote:

@Keegan Could you reach out to Eran and let him know that we're ready to rollout the bot on Hebrew wikipedia once we have the translations and bot approval in place? We'd appreciate any help he's able to provide for those tasks.

We can also get the conversation about bot rollout started on other wikis. Looking at the helpful voter list Trevor pulled up above, it seems like meta, ro and de wikis would be good next candidates.

Translations would be good, yes. I'll get something written up and out to translators by Friday, and aim to post early next week. Most of these languages have active translators.

In T201536#4489147, @Niharika wrote:

@Keegan Do you think we should do the same we did in the other ticket (try to get consensus) or do you think we should just post a message to inform them about the impending deprecation?

In T199367#4488975, @Niharika wrote:

Spanish follow-up posted: https://es.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikiviajes:La_posada#RelatedSites_removal

The Dutch seem to have cleared the links and are okay with un-deploying the extension: https://nl.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Reizigerscafé#RelatedSites

For Polish, since we are writing a script to remove the links in T201215: Write a script to remove RelatedSites links from pages on a given wiki, we could just use that.

@Keegan - When we remove the links from the pages, do you think we should let them be on the user pages or should we clean those up too? Technically speaking, it's no extra work though I'm wondering if people would be averse to a bot touching their user pages, even if it's to remove dead links.

Draft slides are up, link to the portal page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Depicts