You got me curious, I'm not objecting to your patch. =)

In T404129#11165034, @Bawolff wrote:

The only thing I'm not sure of is if WebP allows for anything, as a format, that would be undesirable to allow through without additional checking.

WebP is fine as a format

If I'm reading this right, and I'd like to think that I am, the "fix" is to change this line in UploadVerification.php from

I think forcing users to use Commons is a bad idea, especially if a user is already disenchanted with Commons, forcing them to use that project when the data could be stored locally is likely going to turn people off from using this at all. There should be a way to specify a local data source for such users. This would also simplify testing and experimenting.

@tstarling For the file history it would be nice if there was a way to select two files and hit a "diff" or "compare" button, similar to the revision history for regular pages. Intermediate file revisions would be ignored, it would just be showing a diff of whichever two versions are chosen.

Somehow in my searching I didn't come across this request, and created T400734. Thank you Pppery for helping me get here. =)

In T189108#9677405, @Aschroet wrote:

Since the creation of the ticket according to Moore's law the available resources on client and server site should have been increased by a sufficient factor to double the limits.

This is currently be used as a reason to avoid certain types of edits on larger articles on English Wikipedia, particularly the Donald Trump article, which was brought up in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Talk:Donald_Trump_and_using_WP:LOCALCON_to_disallow_citation_archives

In T332653#8713866, @TheDJ wrote:

The dark mode extension is a completely separate extension, not in use on WMF. We currently don't really have a dark mode, which is tracked in T26070.

@Izno, with regard to removing Community-Wishlist-Survey-2023, I'd think this would be closely related to Native SVG support and Dark mode, both of which scored highly in the survey.

It's pretty annoying that, all these years later, this still hasn't been acted on. I don't see anything particularly bad with Adobe's patent license, the only burdensome thing I see in the license is that our documentation include a notice crediting Adobe for the DNG specification. I think from a software perspective, the bigger issue is usability: ideally DNG files would be paired with a final raster image at image upload time (so we'd be encouraging editors with access to cameras that produce raw images to actually upload both their finished/edited version, as well as the original raw file). I notice also that the Commons Archive from 2015 (above) is currently down, so there isn't really a solution for this right now.

A prompt to import would work, with a decline to accept a straight upload. This is already the behavior (at least on Commons) when someone attempts to upload a duplicate file.

Obviously a little late, but it would be nice if there were a way to disable reply links within archived discussions (while still having them enabled on the rest of the page). A magic word would presumably apply to the entire page, but perhaps something similar to <nowiki> (<noreply>?) that could be used as needed within discussions?

Well, on further consideration I almost wonder if it wouldn't make sense to use the exact same check that FileImporter uses? In this way the same settings are used for both (ex: English language Wikipedia FileImporter settings), and the experience is consistent without a risk of settings being more/less restrictive on one end of the experience vs. the other. I haven't looked at the FileImporter code, but it may be as simple as a copy/paste and making sure it's pointing at the correct configuration settings?