It's not just the phrases "Hi, I edit here too as X", but also using "Welcome to Wikipedia" can be patronizing to somone who's been here for a while.

In T330969#8666932, @Tgr wrote:

In T330969#8666927, @Mhawk10 wrote:

The problem is that there's a CC license that applies only to the thin copyright protection afforded to the photographer

Right but that's not a real thing. A CC license gives you very specific rights to reuse the work. It expressly forbids additional restrictions that aren't in the license. A license saying "use of this image has to comply with the license of the original artwork and on top of that credit the photographer" is just not a CC license. It's not even similar to a CC license. (What would e.g. sharealike mean in that context?)
(Also IMO it's very pointless. What would be the situation in which you can claim fair use for reusing the image as far as the original artwork's copyright is concerned, but cannot claim fair use with respect to reusing the photography part of the copyright and need to follow the photographer's license requirements? I don't think a fair use defense works like that. It would restrict what someone with express permission from the original artwork's author can do with the photograph, but the practical relevance of that seems slim.)

Anyway if someone insists on that misleading use of the CC template, it should be given some extra parameter which makes it not emit machine-readable CC metadata (the various CSS classes starting with licensetpl).

In T330969#8666925, @Tgr wrote:

In T330969#8666890, @Mhawk10 wrote:

it should give priority to the non-free tag, but it's currently giving priority to the CC tag.

Why should it? Multi-licensed files can be used under any of the licenses; it makes sense to show the most permissive license in a simplified interface.

If it's not CC licensed, don't put a CC license on it.

It's hosted locally on the English Wikipedia and it's not on Commons, so I'm unsure how Commons would be affecting this. My best guess is that the API is confused by there being both a non-free licensing tag on the page and a CC tag on the page; it should give priority to the non-free tag, but it's currently giving priority to the CC tag.

As the WMF-Legal project tag was added to this task, some general information to avoid wrong expectations:
Please note that public tasks in Wikimedia Phabricator are in general not a place where to expect feedback from the Legal Team of the Wikimedia Foundation due to the scope of the team and/or nature of legal topics. See the project tag description.
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal for when and how to contact the Legal Team. Thanks!

Is this something that we would need a WMF grant for, should OUP not want to provide free access anymore?

In T289212#8546732, @TheDJ wrote:

en.wp has added a "log in" link to the account creation page. The assumption here is that ppl looking for login might be inclined to click 'Create account" and can then find the login button at least at that spot. This was done via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Signupstart

It's my understanding that much of Latin Uyghur doesn't actually have a capitalization convention; the local [[قېلىپ:Welcome]] does not use any capitalizations for example. There are also not a terribly long number of articles on UgWiki, so manually sorting and classifying the article based upon alphabet is not going to be a terribly hard task (especially if we have a script that can find unique characters to each set, it should not be too too hard to make a list).

My reading of consensus is that of the closing summary, that:

There is consensus to keep the old icon

and, while it can be improved,,

the community would prefer approving a new icon, or having input on the design, before implementation

If you disagree with the reading of consensus from the closer, that's fine, but that's also something to discuss with the closer or to challenge at AN. That isn't something to completely ignore, given that it was closed less than five days ago. Frankly, the EnWiki community hasn't approved the new logo, so I'm a bit floored at the idea that we would ignore such a recent consensus that was achieved on-wiki.

A discussion on the English Wikipedia's village pump closed as there being consensus against implementing the new external links icon on EnWiki. In light of this, I do not think it's appropriate to deploy this change to the English Wikipedia.