@Mvolz perhaps one of the translator requests from zotero upstream would be a good microtask? May not be small enough.

@srishakatux as far as I know, this is still a basically undocumented process, so I still think it'd be a good project for someone.

I don't think I can co-mentor the project altogether, but I'm happy to volunteer as an alpha tester for the documentation: read, attempt to implement, edit spelling/grammar/etc.

FWIW, the autosuggester fixes the problem I had when I initially filed this bug, so thanks! and agree with the close.

If someone stumbles across this, note that there was a techtalk that documents some parts of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltEL-kPURKs

Attached is what I see; enwiki, Firefox, Linux. I believe I also see the same on Firefox Mac but don't have that box handy right now. Might be platform/browser specific, but reopening in any case. Dan, agree that the behavior you're seeing is great/desired behavior.

Happened two more times this afternoon, again with the weird logouts, again both on office wiki.

Working again now, without any change/action on my part other than some
edits/saves.

Broken again this morning as of 5:12AM Pacific.

Appears to be back for me now, but it's disturbing that *I* had to be the one to notice/flag it. How is this normally tested after deploy?

To clarify the request: there was no way, from the collections UI, to learn what a collection *was* or why one would want to create one. This presumably put a crimp in the funnel.

If this is "done", should @Matanya 's feedback be moved to a new issue, or... ?

Yeah, I figured this was "wishlist" at best. Shame. :/

James: yes. I wouldn't describe it as low priority, since it leaves a bad first impression on your users - they will assume it is broken and try to fix it (as I did), and may not notice when the "right" thing happens later. But I'm not familiar with your prioritization criteria.

Weird. Works now. Caching or something maybe was broken this morning? Dunno.

I believe http://books.google.com/books/about/Latin_American_Fashion_Reader.html?id=l8LNOJB7Z6UC but I was seeing it on all Google Books URLs I inputted. Not seeing it now, though, maybe got fixed accidentally?

I would not mark as resolved until a solution is negotiated with the
template or bot authors. I agree with you that it seems fine to put the
information in even if redundant, but it isn't our call. Perhaps the CLs
could help facilitate the discussion?

@Josve05a sorry! I did not mean that your bot was anti-citoid, or that you were doing it because of citoid! Just that I am noticing it because I know I created them with citoid, and obviously we should work to make sure that citoid generates complete/accurate cites.

Possibly also useful, there is another bot going around correcting citoid-authored citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Pesotta&curid=3269182&diff=659345628&oldid=655246562

No hurry from me, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't closed by accident :)

Resolved?

Note that https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ has code to do the right thing here.

Sorry, forgot to add a project, which would have made this more clear - this is through citoid. Project added.

This happens even with a single paragraph if the blockquote isn't on the same line as the content. e.g.,

Note that archive.org has reached out to us before about this and would be happy to be an active partner in this. I'd be happy to set up the meeting there.

Note that you get the JSTOR error when using a standard JSTOR URL as well, like http://www.jstor.org/stable/25177324 - should that get a separate bug open?

Obviously hard to get to a console after the fact :) I'll take a look if it happens again.

Haven't seen this since, so closing. Blame it on the aliens hidden away at Ames. ;)

(Which is to say, of course, that there should clearly be a bug for "remove the confirmation step in giving thanks".)

Dumb user question: why is this a research question? Generally, it is standard UX practice to not require confirmation for non-destructive changes, and specifically, no social network I've ever seen requires confirmation for stars/likes/etc. It doesn't seem like it is a good use of research's time/energy to confirm pretty widely understood practice..