Fri, Oct 19
The underlying issue does not seem to be specific to Content translation. I included below the same layout issues happening on the mobile version of visual editor. Once the form elements are improved with responsive support on the mobile editor to better support mobile devices such as tablets, those improvements will benefit Content translation too.
Another example that we may want to test is "Acute bronchitis" from English to Japanese.
This was reported as T207265, which should be reopened if we found out the current ticket was not the real cause of the issue.
Given the type of references, this seems an instance of T206756: CX2: References by name disappear and produce missing reference errors when published. I'll merge the tickets and mention this example to make sure we test it once the ticket is solved.
We may want to reconsider whether to support in version 2 this behaviour. Emphasising the use of the translation document as the place to add content (which requires to complete T189203) would leave the source document available for inspection (once T203775 is completed), avoiding both behaviours to collide (e.g., getting the source paragraph added for translation by accident when trying to inspect a link from the source document).
Thu, Oct 18
Unasigning in case anyone wants to take this one.
Thanks for pinging, @Aklapper
Wed, Oct 17
This is expected bahaviour. If I'm translating an article from Japanese to French, leaving a paragraph in Japanese with no modification on the final French Wikipedia published article seems something to flag for review. Note that in the title we refer to "too much unmodified text", which should include both unmodified MT and unmodified source text.
Tue, Oct 16
Mon, Oct 15
This is working as expected in version 2:
The system to communicate issues has been improved for version 2, this should not happen with the new version.
The progress indicators have been updated as part of the efforts on version 2. So this is expected to be solved, but feel free to report similar issues in the new version.
Thu, Oct 11
Tue, Oct 9
Thanks @Elitre. I summarised the proposed plan at the ticket description on top. Feel free to edit anything if I misunderstood the proposed process. This looks good to me, and I think we can coordinate it with our internal 2-week sprint process.
Mon, Oct 8
This was requested by a user in this comment.
Fri, Oct 5
Once this is available it may be good to check if it also helps with the case described in T206309 to provide a better mapping.
Thu, Oct 4
It makes perfect sense. Posting to the VPs should reach a good number of people, and while the local help pages may have less visits they are a very relevant place for people interested in the tool.
Wed, Oct 3
Tue, Oct 2
A user reported about this limitation in this comment: