Why would there be any security issues with admins being able to view deleted js/css pages? The security issues surely come from edits being potentially harmful. If there truly are any revisions which must be hidden from almost everyone's view then isn't that what Oversight is for?

In T124305#4433882, @Trizek-WMF wrote:

I'm reporting the same issue as @Ryasmeen. While in my workflow of changing a link, I've several clicked on "change label" to change the label, and re-clicked because nothing was happening (and re-clicked, just in case it auto-fixes). Something was actually happening: the label is selected in the text. I think I unconscious mind thought that was broken because nothing visible changed. I'm used to have a dialog to open for those actions.

Some users may have the same issue: expecting something that is not happening.

IMO clicking "show" should always display the results of the settings in the form, even if they are unchanged and even if the defaults differ from user preference settings (what the defaults should be is an unrelated issue).

Based on this and T198961 I've created T199049 to (hopefully) resolve the issues.

Based on this and T176033 I've created T199049 to (hopefully) resolve the issues.

I suppose another approach would be to disallow 0 as a value and change all existing instances of this value to be equal to the current maximum. This would be less preferable to the above though.

It seems that the default "days to display in watchlist" had somehow become set to 0, and increasing that value has apparently fixed the problem.
Given that a value of 0 apparently breaks the watchlist, it might be an idea to either not allow that or at least warn that it will break, however unless someone wants to make this task about that, this task can probably be closed.

I'm not sure where the place to report this on meta would be, but my searches have not turned up anything relevant.

AntiSpoof isn't foolproof though, e.g. it disallows Тhryduulf (the first letter is Cyrillic) but probably not Thryduuulf (too many 'u's) or Awkwrad42 (typo for my alt Awkward42).

In T188798#4042454, @Deskana wrote:

In T188798#4039141, @stjn wrote:

We as a community should move away from the ‘holier-than-thou’ relationship of English Wikipedia with WMF. If you would not do changes that might prove bad in English Wikipedia, don’t do them in other communities as well. If current trade-off is 500 characters (although I’d prefer the return to status quo), it should be applied everywhere.

The wishes of the vocal users of the English Wikipedia frequently do not represent what other communities want or find useful.

"not high priority" and "should be dismissed out of hand" are two completely different things.

@stjn I think the optimal would be a show/hide javascript (or whatever) link for long edit summaries with the default being selectable in your preferences. I don't know how much work would be, but I guess it is not astoundingly trivial.

I can reproduce this in Firefox 56.0 but not in Chromium 64.0.3282.167

@Pginer-WMF That looks like it would resolve at least most of the issues I have with the current set-up, and as long as it is obvious that truncation has happened when it has then there are no immediate problems with it I can see.

@TBolliger based on the comment by @Ragesoss this API option might have useful application indpedenet of T184470

For me, even though it would be frustrating seeing an error after so long that would be preferable to silently timing out. If the error had suggested next steps (e.g. alternatives or workarounds if there are any) then this would reduce the frustration slightly.

@Zoranzoki21 removing nbsp is not even the main issue here, it's misinterpreting nbsp as the name of an author/editor

I think you may have misunderstood - fair use images are appearing on the main page in the app when they do not do so on the desktop version or mobile view of the desktop version.

and also remove notifications that a user doesn't car about, e.g. I want to know about new links to Q24258909 (broken rail) but I don't care about new links to Q26484625 (lap (of a circuit). The latter are far more common, but I can only choose to get both or neither currently and have no options at all about new links to Q7283877 (Rail Accident Investigation Branch), which I'd like to see, as that item was created by a bot.

T166092 is related to this - any automatic selection of images should not display fair use or other non-free images.

The copyrighted E.T. film poster is today prominently displayed on the main page of the mobile site as the article about the film is today's featured article on en.wp. This is despite the human-curated front page of the desktop front page using the public domain extract from the logo. I don't see why there would ever be a need for a different image to be used.

@Billinghurst add an entry to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey (I guess it would fit in the editing section?).

Am I correct in thinking that {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} and {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} not being substituded in this edit is due to this bug?

If someone clicks the "why are we asking this?" link it might be worth stopping/extending the timeout before the popup disappears so that the question is still there when they've read the answer.

Do click-throughs count when the result is opened in another tab/window - I do this quite often when I'm not sure which of a few results is the one I want.

In T176428#3633003, @debt wrote:

In T176428#3628266, @debt wrote:

Is "maybe" going to go into the same bucket that "i don't know" has gone into? They aren't quite the same.

They're not quite the same, but I'm not sure that that distinction is made outside of our team (i.e. do users of the survey feel that the definition of 'I don't know' and 'maybe' are basically the same?)

I'd keep them separate.

Are you thinking that we should have both responses available: maybe and I don't know?

Yes, if those with more knowledge of human factors than me don't think that would be too complicated.

In T176428#3628266, @debt wrote:

Is "maybe" going to go into the same bucket that "i don't know" has gone into? They aren't quite the same.

They're not quite the same, but I'm not sure that that distinction is made outside of our team (i.e. do users of the survey feel that the definition of 'I don't know' and 'maybe' are basically the same?)

An obvious link to documentation, starting with a "what is this?", and a link to somewhere to leave feedback (optional) about the survey would be useful (I forget how I found the phab ticket, but it did involve a google search).
A fourth option to click on - "I want to answer in more words" would be great for people like me, but it would need to avoid the issues of the article feedback tool (alas I can't offer any suggestions how to do this off the top of my head).

@TJones Thanks for the response, the situation now is:
*Naval flag is a disambiguation page listing Maritime flag, Naval ensign and Naval jack with a see also to the new Lists of naval flags (it was previously a redirect to Maritime flag).
*Naval flags redirects to the naval flag disambiguation
*Lists of naval flags is a new list of lists (anyone with knowledge of the topic is encouraged to expand this!)
*List of naval flags redirects to the list of lists.

When a template on its own line is moved within a page, it should be placed on its own line at the new location. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation&diff=801114094&oldid=797558629

Can these be created before the group exists or is it best to wait?

I've just stumbled across this and can't find anywhere to leave feedback about it - please point me to somewhere else if you don't want it here.

@Lourdes as a non-admin you would presently require the "edit filter manager" right (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter#User_right ), for which you need to make a request at the edit filter noticeboard.

The goal of this is to see which links are piped without needing to interact with them.

More as a reminder for when the documentation page gets written for this after implementation than anything more urguent, but it might be worthwhile to note that there are ways a restricted user can find out they are specifically restricted, including (but not necessarily limited to):

• sockpuppet accounts
• {{you've got mail}} and similar messages on user talk pages
• the restricting user asking third parties to email them

I'm really not at all sure that the actual benefits of this task to the people who are at the sharp end are actually understood by the developers. There is a reason that this has been resurrected at least twice, has at least four duplicate tasks, and the requests for it continue more than 5 years after it was first requested. Indeed this is one of just two tasks (T51969 is the other, and this is far more important than that) that are standing between where we are now and VE being intuitively easy for both new and power editors to use simply and reliably for non-specialist editing in almost all reasonable circumstances without making unforced errors.

In T55973#3491393, @ssastry wrote:

When you want to change the label, can't you just change the label text without opening the link editor?

The problem is that when you do that you could be intending to change the label without the link or you could be intending to change both label and link. There is no way for the software to know which you intend, and no way for the naive user to know which has actually happened without actively opening the link editor, but it is likely that the assumption will be that both were changed (per @Whatamidoing-WMF). Remember that VE is focused towards inexperienced and less-computer-literate users rather than power users, so there will be a very high proportion of users who do not know that you need to actively check what VE is doing.

Continuing the example from the opening comment, Apples should also see notifications from Bananas related to fr.wp when they visit meta, if they (a) have not blacklisted Bananas meta, and
(b) have cross-wiki notifications enabled.

@Aklapper if that is what generates the search results in Wikipedia's internal search engine, then yes.

This is being discussed currently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#.3B_as_a_typo_for_shortcuts

Well that news is a big disaapointment as the inability to quickly, easily, reliably and unambiguously change the destination the destination and/or description of a link is the biggest single impediment to Visual Editor.

When editing in VE I sometimes have to load a duplicate copy of the page in a new tab so that I can see what I'm doing.

I've appended "on Wikidata" to the title of this task to make it easier to find in searches, and also to make it clear that it is only proposed to turn it off on the one project not generally.

If this feature is added, removing an item that has been flagged as needing a citation should generate an edit summary that notes a citation was requested.

Please could you link to the relevant task where this was fixed and/or the relevant TemplateData documentation to help people if this happens again.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5089194&type=revision&diff=325544717&oldid=314121367
This is another example of how assuming a precision is incorrect - the value given in the source is 135,000,000 gallons without specifying the level of precision. It is very unlikely to be either ±0 or ±1 gallon (although not impossible) however how many significant figures are there? - anywhere from 3 to 9 is possible and, without further investigation, unknowable.

It's now approaching two months since this was declined without adequate explanation and reopened pending that explanation. Please can we now have the reasoning (or a pointer to it) that led to the decline - this remains the biggest single hindrance to simple, intuitive use in my experience.

Thinking more about it, that you have had to have discussions about it in "dozens of places" (none of which are linked so we can verify this) suggests that actually there is a very strong desire for a two-box solution.

I'd like to third this question.
In informal discussions of VE this is one of the most frequent issues brought up. Indeed I'm astounded that anyone could be "happy" at this decision.

There is currently a property proposal for "Wikidata usage instructions" that is relevant to this task.

A small amount of further testing shows this isn't limited to Arabic as I get the same issue with Hebrew text in reference 18 (the second in the "History" section) at the Hebrew Language en.wp article on the Android app (same device as above, and on my girlfriend's different Samsung Android).

Re-reading this bug, it does seem that events have overtaken it.

I think one possible way of doing this would be to store in the local wiki page metadata the associated Wikidata ID. The existence of this could be used as a trigger to display the dialog suggested by Magioladitis above.

This appears to be a duplicate of T51772 but I'm not sure how to mark it as such in Phabricator.

One way around this /might/ be to search not on image title but on image description in the local language. i.e. for users on pt.wp display only images that have "testes" in the Portuguese description field. for users on e.g. ca.wp display only images that have "testes" in the Catalan description, etc. Obviously this requires there to be a pt, etc. description for useful files ( and there are fewer of these an en descirptions) and wont resolve issues of homographs or vandalism but it should (I think) otherwise resolve the issue reported here (and might even encourage more local language descriptions on Commons, which would be a nice side effect). This should be the only search done for automatic searches.

I'm very unclear what this is intending to achieve?
Is it intended to find socks of Orangemoody specifically? If so why - is there evidence that it is necessary?
Is it to find socks of any known paid editor? If so why restrict it to paid editors? Why not socks of any prolific sockpuppeter?
Is it to detect paid editing generally? If so, how do you propose to distinguish legitimate (i.e. disclosed) paid editors from those who are not disclosing their paid status, particularly as disclosure can be made on the userpage, edit summary or article talk page and there is no standard wording? How and why do you propose to distinguish between paid editors and non-paid editors who make similar edits (e.g. fans/enthusiasts of a subject)?