Sat, Oct 16
@Addshore Does this also affect the new suggester?
Wed, Oct 13
According to @Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE it seems all but Commons (and testcommons) are done. Should we close this ticket then and keep the subticket for Commons only?
We clarified that in today's stand-up. It is indeed about the injection in recent changes.
Tue, Oct 12
At some point we turned off fine-grained usage tracking from Commons because it would have exploded the recent changes table there. I am not sure what the current state is.
(Sam's decision but asking question for clarification.)
I would like to keep them accessible without querying, yeah.
Mon, Oct 11
Fri, Oct 8
Yes! This feels much better :)
This seems to no longer be happening.
This seems to no longer be happening.
Thu, Oct 7
Wed, Oct 6
@Mattia_Capozzi_WMDE Can you change the order of the data quality tools links to be the exact opposite?
And please add all the links here.
@Mattia_Capozzi_WMDE Can you please add the copy here?
Mon, Oct 4
Sun, Oct 3
Fri, Oct 1
Thu, Sep 30
In the meantime for my talk: Do we know what the current number is?
Ah I think it would be very unfortunate if this data isn't available publicly anymore. It's a pretty key thing for all of us and the community to be keeping an eye on imho.
It'd also help me to get a current number for daily queries already for my WikidataCon talk.
Wed, Sep 29
- Could this solution somehow backfire? -> several answers in this thread that we will weigh and see if they warrant any action
- What are all the mul-<script> codes that we should start with? -> none, we are just going with mul for now as I said in my comment
- How exactly should be the fallback chain for these mul codes? -> no fallback within the mul codes because we only have one. fallback to and from other languages is in my remaining questions
There is no disagreement.
We are spending a lot of time discussing things that currently don't move this forward and do not help get to a meaningful consensus. So one final try. We need input on the final remaining discussion points as I laid out in T285156#7384455. Let's please concentrate on those now so that we can then update the task description once we heard everyone.
@Esc3300 For clarification: Lucas and I spent a lot of time yesterday on getting everything to a point where we believe it is sensible and the remaining questions are clarified. It'd be good to concentrate the discussion on those remaining points now because otherwise we can not move this forward. As there is a strong desire from several editors to get this done I want to push this to the point where we can actually pick it up.
Thanks for the patch!
So I still believe this is the right way to go and it is important.
The current system gets boring quickly because it shows you the same type of issue on the same type of property in an overwhelming percentage of runs. This is not a good user experience. This is also the feedback we've been getting repeatedly.
Tue, Sep 28
I just discussed this with Lucas. It seems extremely rare for this to occur so let's not bother until it becomes an actual problem.
@Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE and I read through everything and spent some more time thinking this through. Thank you everyone for providing all the input, especially @Nikki. That really helped.
One thing to still clarify or the discussion (which I also wasn't aware of): The language fallback chains do not have to make up a tidy tree. It can (and does in places) have cycles and a language can have several fallback languages. For example avk falls back to fr, es, ru; mdf and myv fall back to one another (before both fall back to ru).
It's beautiful! :D
@Mattia_Capozzi_WMDE Please close if ok from your side as well.
Looks great to me too!
Mon, Sep 27
Thu, Sep 23