i formed 2 arrays from a big statement and a big expression, for requests of reviewers, they further can be separated into a file. i personally doubt this forming of arrays is a good change. because i could add a different statement between the statements, and i could add a different logical expression (not with "or"), and now i cannot.

freenode is replaced to libera in old versions of mediawiki.org pages! this is immoral! why it is replaced so? that is a lie! please fix it!

converter is ready long time ago. the code is not accepted into mediawiki. @thiemowmde voted -1 and requested to separate code into more files.

renamed 2000 to 2013, because wikipedians would not like it is named as 2000, because 2000's laws are canceled, but now there is 2013's law. there are several letter differences like ɵ -> ö, though ö was also somewhat admitted for computer usage. this converter uses ö. and there is no letter for hamza and palatalisation in 2013's law, and no rules/orthography are given. this converter uses apostroph for hamza and palatalisation, as used in 2000 law, and rules/orthography as given in 2000 law.

comment from code, i am going to mostly delete this from the code:
2017-02-18, author dinar qurbanov: by making this converter, i look like supporting it. but it is not so. *i think this alphabet has many disadvantages, i do not want to make it popular.* i regard this as historical museum showpiece. i think it should be ok to put it into tatar wikipedia, into conversion system of mediawiki. that converted pages are denied for search engines to index, as i know. exact version of latin orthography (and alphabet) was not chosen by voting by wikipedians, and wikipedians have not voted to edit rules of the tatar latin orthography to be used in wikipedia, so, i have decided to make this exactly as it was commanded by 2000's #882 resolution of cabinet of ministers of tatarstan. i use scans published by user Kitap ( https://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Татарстанда_татар_телен_дәүләт_теле_буларак_куллану_кануны#Татар_теленең_латин_язулы_орфографиясенең_гамәлдән_чыккан,_хәзерге_вакытта_рәсми_булмаган_кайбер_кагыйдәләре ), but i am not sure whether they are of resolution #882 or #618. that 2000's #882 resolution is canceled by russia law and by resolution #38 of 2013, of cabinet of ministers of republic of tatarstan, and new alphabet is accepted by 2013's law of tatarstan 1-ЗРТ, but that new alphabet is (even) less usable: there is no rules, no character for palatilasation in russian words, and the alphabets' table does not show all use cases of cyrillic letters. and i am going to mark this script as tt-latn-2000. i have found from gerrit comment that it is not ok. ("2000" subtag of variant is not registered in iana yet, but must, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF_language_tag ). then maybe i will mark as tt-latn-x-2000 where it is not variant, but in private-use subtag.

is there community consensus for this code? there were many discussions so it must be wanted. there are links to discussions here: https://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кулланучы:Qdinar#википедиядагы_сөйләшүләр . standalone version of this converter is referred at https://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Татар_Википедиясе#TATLAT .

hello. seems this bot is working in gerrit and it has written same message twice in same change page. seems it writes after every patch set upload.

i reply to comment of @DannyH in/at T93883 .

"This comment from LuizM was posted before the comment from Zoldyick, but it appears after it, and with a different indentation." - 1) luizm could not post his second comment in the subthread place, like zoldyick posted, because at that time, he posted to the latest post of the thread. 2) then, zoldyick answers to first post of him, but he could answer to both posts of him - if he posted to the end of thread.

"Mattflaschen closed this task as a duplicate of T93883: ..." - that page is not specifically about impossibility to reply to latest comment, but one example, of bug report author, @He7d3r , maybe, also/partially says about that: "This was a reply to Leonardo, not to the IP itself: https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%B3pico:Sghi15zkgzpkazhj&topic_showPostId=sghjjxakzxss4ydh#flow-post-sghjjxakzxss4ydh".

there is additional explanation inside textarea: "reply to threadname", but 1) user may overlook that, it is grayed out. 2) and, that explanation is same in all different cases of reply forms! and it is not very true: if user starts a new sub-thread, it is not reply to main thread's topic, it is discussion of partcularly only that post, to which he presses to reply.

"This has the disadvantage of presenting an irrelevant choice to the user" - @Pginer-WMF about his 1st image - i have reported about exactly this, in my 1st comment. author of T116999 @ksmith also thought that these are 2 different interface elements: "At the bottom of the page, there is a small/faint "Reply" link, and then below it is a large/prominent "Reply to xxx" box." etc. so, the 1st image is not good. the 3rd also has 2 interface elements. so, the only correct is the 2nd. (but same form should be also at sub-threads' ends, see my previous comment).

@Pginer-WMF what is in your first image is what is working now at www.mediawiki.org/wiki , and as in my screenshot. as i understand, this was made so after you suggested it here, and it was other before. but this is not clear to me.

this bug report is duplicate of T94381 , but that one is formulated as feature request.

why it is so - because last post in classical diagonal thread also does not allow 2 different ways of replying to it.

add: and, here is a error in my explanation at

...
1post - reply to 0post (and to topic) , in main thread
*npost - reply to 1post (and to topic) , in main thread

if there is nothing under "npost" in main thread (with no indentation) this indendation of "npost" is not possible in current new indentation model of flow, (and maybe also was not possible in old model), it is only possible if there are already some posts in main thread below "npost":

...
1post - reply to 0post (and to topic) , in main thread
*7post ("npost") - reply to 1post, creating a subthread, discussion of 1post
6post - reply to 1post (and to topic) , in main thread

@Sunpriat "or I do not understand Flow" - yes, you did not understand it.

topic-post
*2post reply to topic-post
*3post reply to topic-post
*4post reply to topic-post
*5post reply to topic-post
1post reply to topic-post
*npost reply to 1

should be understood this way:

topic
0post
*2post - reply to 0post, creating a subthread, discussion of 0post
*3post - reply to 2post, in subthread of 0post
*4post - reply to 3post, in subthread of 0post
*5post - reply to 4post, in subthread of 0post
1post - reply to 0post (and to topic) , in main thread
*npost - reply to 1post, creating a subthread, discussion of 1post (i have edited this place, see next comment)
(n-x)post - reply to 1post (and to topic) , in main thread
...

and see my comments and images in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Senq838us190rqlp . i wrote similar idea suggestion in 2009-august-26 , for livejournal comments , you can read also in russian : http://dinarkurbanov.wp.kukmara-rayon.ru/2009/08/26/ветвление-комментариев-в-жж/ .

this bug [report] is duplicate of T94381

the idea is ok ... but if they do so, it will be impossible to [automatically] reshape/reconfigure/modify discussion to classic diagonal threads , which/how is requested in T93024.

seems this is about old indendation model. there is new indendation model, and most development is probably there now. i do not see here that this bug is closed, and i do not understand "backlog", and i have not read instruction/usage manual of phabricator yet. (and btw link from here to help does not work, here is no link to its development site, but i think i can find them in google, etc.)

there is page about [first experimental] deployment in www.mediawiki.org , and there are also screenshots: T92400 .

the idea is ok ... but if they do so, it will be impossible to [automatically] reshape/reconfigure/modify discussion to classic diagonal threads , which/how is requested in T93024.

this is not bug, but a feature, and main meaning of the new indendation model.

the classic threads system really does not have "subthreads", it has multiple continuations of threads, and second continuation is adopted/interpreted as a subthread in the flow's new indendation model, and third continuation is not possible there in flow.

see edition to my previous post. and:

if you want to have the classical "diagonal" threads with full functionality, you probably should also put that functionality also to the new compact indendation.

i comment, because it is not clear to me from texts in this page that the interface texts shown in the image at the topic start are not used now, they are changed, or never implemented.

from my post in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Senq838us190rqlp :

i get the tests folder with mediawiki. so it is part of mediawiki. and if i read "README" of it, i do not see that running it through browser is possible. probably it is not possible, and making a new script is needed. though running only 1 of the language tests maybe is already possible with usage of command line arguments (but also probably it is not possible because there is nothing in readme). i should ask about that in some mailing lists. any way README should be updated/edited with instructions, if that things are already possible.

new test

3 texts i made (tested) new converter with

hi . i have made a new converter and uploaded to gerrit :
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/164049/