I commented .mw-ref > a::after { content: counter( mw-Ref, decimal ); } on all wikis listed in T370512#10033810.

Shouldn't we rename this task to highlight the investigation phase, as the initial problem is now resolved?

Given the number of wikis impacted, I think we can safely edit the local CSS ourselves. If you think it is a good idea, I can do it.

I'm linking T156351: Add wiki-specific CSS styles for Parsoid Cite output so that it renders exactly like core Cite output here as a FYI, as it is documented at es.wp as the reason for the addition of .mw-ref > a::after to the CSS file.

In T370512#10024144, @Quiddity wrote:

Ah, I think this might be my mistake? I must've read too fast, and seen the merged-duplicate which is about Arabic, and so I added this task's link to the draft thinking they were for the same entry. I've now removed that link again.

Sorry for the noise, I got confused while reading. It is a similar task but not the right one. :/

For next week's Tech News, how should this task be contextualized for an entry? Is there an action/edit that you want local editors/admins/interface-admins to do (or check if needed)? Thanks.

I think we should add an entry explaining that we identified the issue and we are working on it.

Thank you Gerges!

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Newsletters/31 was sent to 306 pages.

I don't understand how the accident happened, but I feel that any solution that both:

• asks the user to check on the page title when the target is changed,
• keeps whatever is in the label field (even if wrong).

would be fine.

I'm confused by today's Tech News entry that link this task, which starts with:

Editors using the Visual Editor in languages that use non-Latin characters for number [...] may notice some changes in the formatting of reference numbers.

(Emphasis is mine.)

Thank you for pasting the FAQ link before I did! :)

Turning VE on at Wikipedia: namespace was a problem as some pages at this namespace are used for discussions. The visual editor is not designed to handle discussions, but Discussion tools are. Now that DT is available everywhere,it is possible to enable VE at namespaces that are used for discussions, with limitations.

Maybe @Gerges would like to take care of this request?

It is now possible to enable the visual editor in any non-talk namespace (Recherche:, Wikiversity:). At pages where discussions happen, and where visual editing is needed, DiscussionTools must be used for discussions.

It is now possible to enable the visual editor in the Wikipedia:namespace. At pages where discussions happen, and where visual editing is needed, DiscussionTools must be used for discussions.

It is now possible to enable the visual editor in the Wikipedia:namespace. At pages where discussions happen, and where visual editing is needed, DiscussionTools must be used for discussions.

I think we should simplify the process beyond changing the copy:

• if Add a link (Structured task) is available, then Add links between articles is not available in Community configuration (nor to users).
• if Add a link (Structured task) is turned off, then Add links is not shown, like if no alternative exists. If Add a link was turned off, then I don't believe that the local community would fancy turning on a task that allows users to add links anywhere within an article. :)

In T370722#10005410, @Bugreporter wrote:

One important step is turn off user talk page Beta Feature for each opted-in users and then disable the Beta Feature permanently.

In T370559#10008861, @KStoller-WMF wrote:

@Trizek-WMF - do you think this is a blocker to release? Could we just include the recommendation to populate that section in configuration when we announce the release?

Done July 7 (report)

As the goal is to sunset this extension, I don't find it relevant to make lots of efforts to adapt Flow to night mode. :) I would decline it officially, saying we won't adapt it at all.

• akwiki was part of round 4, but has not enough content to suggest links T304548#8008475
• nawiki was excluded (not enough recommendations) T308137#9127717
• novwiki, nrmwiki and nvwiki were all part of round 13; deployed but with not excluded section titles T308138#9090826

In T368910#9974674, @kostajh wrote:

The work at T365846: Assist communities in archiving Flow/StructuredDiscussions boards should maybe prioritize discussions with the mediawiki.org community to ensure that technical support for MediaWiki continue to function well with Temporary accounts.

Sounds like a good idea, cc @ppelberg @Trizek-WMF

We had community conversations to introduce our next plans, which was the goal for Q4. Now that we have entered the new fiscal year and learned from our communities regarding the Contributors goal, I consider the task as done. I'll check with @SonjaPerry about the next steps.

The ame issue was reported from zh.wp.

As T368987: Add an Image: filtering by suggestion "kind" or "confidence" is not ready yet, and while I'll be on vacation next week, I prefer to postpone the deployment to the week of July 15.

Page protection is not supposed to be permanent. It is important to keep it as a temporary option. Mentors who have constant issues due to patrolling should consider not being mentors (or, perhaps, reconsider how patrolling is performed).

Adding User-notice as it is a bug affecting all wikis.

Evaluation done on my side.

I announced the change in Tech News, and I think an upcoming Diff post could be very useful to remind our communities that CC exists.

The front end is still not deployed. We will announce it when ready.

FYI @BAPerdana-WMF

I'm moving this project from "active work" to "passive vigilance": the projects listed under sub-tasks are underway but without any specific commitments.

In T355153#9907754, @Dogu wrote:

@Trizek-WMF, as mentioned in T355150#9843260, it seems the Moderator Tools team lacks the capacity to support Adiutor due to recent team changes and new projects. Would your team like to take stewardship of the Adiutor MediaWiki extension?

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/06/17/references-check-encouraging-adding-citations-to-wikipedia/

The only wiki concerned by this change is Turkish Wikipedia. I covered it in T367799: Check with Turkish Wikipedia if we can move from edit summary configuration variables to i18n message strings.

(I think it is one of the fastest task's resolution I experienced.)

Option 3 should be put forward IMO:

• Scalability: it will be necessary when other teams start using CC
• Consistency: other fields will have suggestions, but not for templates

Translations:

• French
• Indonesian
• Hindi

Checked with @nayoub: not a priority, keeping for later though.