Thanks; that's exactly what I have in mind!

I fully concur with AlexisJazz and Ahecht here. This has a clear issue to resolve: make the search results ignore the bad image list. The possible bad outcomes are really bad—@Jdlrobson, can we note that this is a blocking issue for the deployment of New Vector?

@Jdlrobson, per the prototype image that I referred you to, and that I'm attaching below for good measure, the approval is for the language switcher button within the Main Page top banner. There is no approval for placing it above the banner, as in your options above; that would require us to run a brand new RfC, which I predict would fail.

English Wikipedia has just approved placing the language switcher button near the upper right corner of the Main Page (at the right end of the top banner, as depicted in the prototype image) as part of a suite of changes to reduce the prominence of portals. Would you all be able to handle the technical end of development to make this possible?

Thanks, @ppelberg; glad to see it's already on the radar!

FYI, this task was independently raised as a suggestion at the English Wikipedia Village Pump.

As a heads up, there is discussion taking place at English Wikipedia on removing the portal links from the top of the Main Page, which would open up a convenient place to put the language switcher, perhaps like this:

1. I'd see myself using it most on large talk pages with a lot of threads. That could be talk pages of controversial topics, e.g. Donald Trump, or user talk pages of active editors. It could also be pages used for discussion that aren't technically talk pages, like the village pumps or Administrators Noticeboard.

One thing I'd like a good talk table of contents to do is to note how many different editors have participated in each discussion. This is because, often, when glancing at a large talk page, I'm looking for the discussions that involve a significant change with a realistic likelihood of passing (things like RfCs or major structural changes), and I'm looking to filter out discussions that are just straightforward edit requests, nonstarter ideas, and other cruft. The threads in the former group will often have many participants, whereas those in the latter will have few.

Thanks for the explanation, Santhosh! I'll just hope it's something Chrome developers eventually fix, then.

Thanks for opening this, Whatamidoing! As background, see this discussion.

@DLynch, someone else replying to the comment would be something I'd want to know, but so would someone else replying at the same level as the comment I'm replying to. In other words, sometimes replies happen by indenting a level further, but sometimes they happen by just making another comment at the same indentation level.

The "polling every X seconds for new changes" approach, if it's not too resource-greedy, appeals, since the sooner I know someone else has commented, the sooner I can start adapting mine to whatever they said. It'd be even better if there's an easy way to load their comment without feeling like the software is going to discard mine.

Awesome; thanks so much!

For the first one, it's normally because I'm looking for a discussion I've contributed to to check if there are updates (less frequent now that I can subscribe) or to link to it from another discussion. (Now that I think about it, having a link icon that would copy the wikilink to a discussion would be super useful.) I currently do that by ctrl+f and typing in my username, but a box would make that easier.

@Aklapper is there anyone at WMF currently working on the page history interface who I could ping about this? It seems like it ought to be a very simple tweak.

@Aklapper, this seems like it should be a very straightforward task. Who at WMF can I ping to get this unstuck?

The number of discussions in the archives seems a little useful, although we currently have a pretty good idea just from the number of archive pages. The number of active discussions is already clear just from the table of contents/length of the page. The last time someone contributed might help make it clearer when a page is inactive/unwatched, but there might be better ways to accomplish that.

I think it'd make most sense to have this done through software, if possible. See T299286.

From the en-WP community angle, the important things to communicate in talk page headers are encapsulated in Template:Talk header, which we are increasingly moving toward using universally. While I don't think any of these really rise to the level of importance needed to be included in a sticky header, they're worth keeping in mind as the stuff we want editors going to a talk page to know/have access to:

Finding a suitable freely licensed IPA --> speech engine is likely to be a primary hurdle here. If we can do that, then it's just a matter of coding and implementing. There's a clear potential benefit if this is taken up (enough so that it might be worth making a wishlist proposal for it).

@Majavah @Zabe, does the uploaded patch resolve the underlying issue, or just push it a year down the road? Per @AntiCompositeNumber's comments at T271968, we have Template:Not-PD-US-expired-min-year and Template:PD-US-expired-max-year, which are made for this exact purpose and should be being used instead.

@Lydia_Pintscher, I added a TemplateData description after creating this ticket, but it's impossible to do more than that until T54582 is resolved (and even that might not be enough—it's a very complicated template). And even if the TemplateData was perfect, there'd still be no link that'd allow someone who clicks on a value to actually update it, which is what they're presumably trying to do.

I mentioned this here at en-WP VPT. It'd be very nice if this could be implemented in a way that'd apply beyond just the help panel, since there are situations where we want to differentiate between e.g. source editor and VE beyond there. There are some presently existing templates like {{If mobile}} that might work.

It's done for various reasons. Sometimes articles on schools do it to theme with the school's colors. Sometimes TV shows do it to help differentiate different seasons. Etc.

FYI, this was brought up here, demonstrating continued interest in the feature from newcomers.

If CodeMirror 6 is a whole new system, hopefully that'll resolve the issue. It's not the most annoying thing in the world, but wikilinks within captions are an extremely common occurrence, so it's very widespread.

FYI, there has been continued interest in this feature at this thread. Cc'ing related tickets T31793, T123517, T121797, T167947, T230561, T251026, and T120453, and @Quiddity who helped point to them.

@Pikne, thanks; it's helpful to know what's happening here. Which OSM relation types are currently supported?

Yeah, I'm not too surprised to hear that. It seems there are other higher-priority tasks for Mapframe, but I just wanted to create this ticket so that this idea will be on the radar as a possible improvement down the road.

One potentially similar thing that occurs to me is the related articles extension. Are you familiar with that, and if so, what is the connection/difference?

A point that recently came up on en-WP (kudos to Magnolia677) is that the version of the panorama viewer does not include an easily noticeable link to the Commons file page, only the enlarge button in the caption that's very rarely used. This makes it more difficult to see information (like description/date) of files and to access tools like the download button. A redesign of the rendering gadget should address this.

I'm not sure how I ended up subscribed to this haha, but since I'm here, some thoughts:

@Iniquity, the way I'd ideally like to see this work is to just have a box people could check when editing a parameter's documentation in TemplateData indicating that it's an auto-numbered parameter (and specifying the limit, if applicable). The TemplateData would then display it intuitively in the documentation and allow people to use it when adding the template to a page.

Thanks for the update/clarification, @MusikAnimal. For reference, by "ranked highly in the most recent community wishlist and the Community Tech team's subsequent prioritization process" I was referring to this report. I certainly understand that the resources of the team are extremely limited, and I'm not saying this particular task should displace others, but it remains very frustrating that 91 different editors flagging a task as important is still not enough to get the WMF to allocate any resources at all to that task.

My point is that the Community Tech team does plan to work on this, at least from what they've communicated. I've added it to their group and removed the priority so that they can assess it themselves.

@MMiller_WMF, sorry for the delayed reply. There was discussion first here, where I pushed to make it more concise. Some editors had strong views about whether to use "suggest"/"strongly suggest"/"consider", so I threw that to an RfC here. The RfC got CENT-listed, so it's ended up with a ton of comments. Some underlying context is here.

@Aklapper, this task ranked highly in the most recent community wishlist and the Community Tech team's subsequent prioritization process, so I'm not sure describing it as "lowest" is accurate. I certainly hope it's not considered that unimportant.

As I requested at T282494, I think the best solution is to move the advice about usernames to just below the username field, just as the advice on choosing a password is just below the password field.

In T289799#7312684, @MMiller_WMF wrote:

Thanks for creating this, @kzimmerman. One thing that might be part of this story is a change to the Create:Account page on English Wikipedia, which added a warning at this top about usernames. Perhaps this is deterring some users. I know that it began in the last year, but I'm not sure when. And I don't think other wikis have done similar things.

A possible application of this feature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#A_bot_to_help_maintain_and_identify_inspiration_articles.

Many new editors were previously IP editors, and therefore do have some expectations about the interface. Some IP editors (for whom this ticket proposes enabling by default) have made thousands of edits over many years, and therefore also have some expectations about the interface.

Thanks for the update, TheDJ. I might have structured the proposal a little differently if I'd known that doing things differently for new vs. current editors would be so difficult, but the way I did it probably made it easiest to achieve consensus. If ignoring inactive editors would make things easier, that probably would be fine, as they're unlikely to complain since they're, well, inactive.

The concern about attribution is worth considering. I don't think it's really feasible to try to block people from copying from Wikipedia, though, even if we wanted to—we'd have to try to disable copy and paste entirely to do that. Our license indicates that text drawn from Wikipedia must be attributed, and beyond that, it's on users to make sure they use the ability wisely.

@Aklapper is there a reason you removed the MediaWiki-extensions-CodeMirror project tag?

A quick note, English Wikipedia has decided to enable syntax highlighting by default for new users, resulting in T288161. Performance issues were raised during the discussion, and MusikAnimal mentioned that this task will help with those, so I hope it will get unstalled and resolved.

Update: the English Wikipedia discussion has now been closed with consensus to implement, and I have filed T288161 accordingly. The consensus was strong enough it wasn't conditional upon the new colors being rolled out, but to the extent this was discussed, there seemed to be clear support for increasing the accessibility.

@zhuyifei1999 oh oops, that one was from a while ago so I must've misremembered which tool I used; apologies about that (it seems videoconvert may have the same scrubbing problem?). Anyways, I believe I also encountered the issue more recently with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Claremont_Taiko_performance.webm. I tried to upload the original file with this comment for comparison, but it gave an error. Again, all one needs to do to replicate the issue is to take an mp4 video file with metadata, upload it to Commons via video2commons, and notice that the metadata has disappeared.

I've started a thread at the Commons village pump to affirm community consensus.

@Jdforrester-WMF , who would that be?

@Jdforrester-WMF , following up yet again. This should not be a hard ticket to resolve—could you give us an update, please?

@Aklapper and @C.Suthorn, my process for uploading a video I've taken to Commons is always through Google photos, so I can't provide an example different than the one I already did. I've provided a quite thorough description of the issue at this point that should be plenty enough for anyone who wants to to replicate it and work toward solving it.

I noticed that the en-WP gadgets preferences page already appears to have solved this issue. It'd be really nice if the other pages could solve it too the same way.

@ChristianKl, the reason I brought it to phab is that I hope it might be possible to create a way to link to fair use images in a similar way as we link to Commons files, just without actually displaying them. That'd reduce the possibility for errors, would help if e.g. a file is moved, and only having to store a filename rather than a full URL just seems cleaner.

In T285810#7185355, @Tagishsimon wrote:

It's been noted on WD:talk that there's no consensus to do this, and so a technical implementation is premature.

I can understand that there are some privacy questions with this, but that shouldn't hold back developers from implementing the option for it.

Another possible application of this, a template that'd allow pinging of all members of a category, has come up here.