Caused by T233534 - failures were on s3, and s3 master went down yesterday. I'll requeue them soon.
Per the above.
Filled. Some topics have only one article. Hope this is okay, if not, reassign back to me and I'll spend some time on finding more articles.
You're welcome, @MarcoAurelio.
Sat, Sep 21
Does the Article IDs in the Google Doc mean anything? In another words, will different order of articles change something?
@MMiller_WMF Sure. In T231935, we ran into a case when a "Site help" link was displayed despite it wasn't in the configuration. There are ways how to test this automatically, so each patch that would (theoretically) break that again would be rejected right away. I wanted to propose to add said test, so this wouldn't happen again.
Fri, Sep 20
Thank you, @Mehman97. Let us know.
Should be fixed.
The rename seems to never started.
Thu, Sep 19
Seems it works now?
Okay, thanks everyone. Removed the -2, will deploy soon-ish.
Wed, Sep 18
The "classic" main page is in place.
@Aklapper I stalled the task above pending on community's "informed decision", if they want the extension to be enabled even with the bug @Catrope described in T229726#5419327, that will probably affect them.
Well, I assumed it would fail similary, but maybe that's a wrong assumption ;).
As I watched @Ladsgroup when he was creating the new wiki, it seems to me that it is now (relatively) easy to create a new wiki now, but still not ideal. Feel free to create new tickets, it (among other things) helps us to get an impression of urgence. Thanks!
Reopening, creating a new wiki is relatively easily doable now, no need to hard block IMO. Obviously, fully fixing T212881 is higher priority than any new wiki.
Database was created.
Should be done.
You're welcome. As soon as the task would be deemed to be resolved, it will be "closed as resolved" by either Danny or me.
Sure - I don't need to pay much attention to this change, so I removed my personal project from it. @DannyS712 uploaded relevant MediaWiki change that allows the change to be made. We need to wait for the change to be reviewed and deployed. Then, we would be able to process with the configuration change. I expect the whole process to take about one month.
Tue, Sep 17
IMO, AWB shouldn't make use of the configuration file at all. Better solution would be to make a MW API exposing the collation, if it is required.
Closing as invalid per Reedy, the numbers are correct, so there's no bug.
Apparently planned cleanup,, see T223602.
Mon, Sep 16
Well, I copied that URL from network tab, as it was requested by VisualEditor... Anyway, seems to work now.
Since it breaks all citations AFAICS, triaging as UBN.
Managed to reproduce, see screencast from jawiki
Could you be more specific, please? See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug for advices.
Sat, Sep 14