In general terms, there are not discussions in these namespaces. The main exception is [[:eu:Wikipedia:Txokoa]], but we use flow there.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope and end up being extra-baroque. Could we limit it to a regular icon and a indicator icon?

Ok, I have opened T369266. I don't know if it should be a subtask.

It may be interesting to have the ability to change the indicator icon, because some projects have other icons for the "Spoken Wikipedia" feature. I don't know if this deserves another ticket.

There's consensus for this: https://eu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Y7hix4r17jw04uzt

I have created a template that makes half of the way: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txantiloi:Videowiki_atala

I have changed the template so the new naming is reflected.

Yes, right. I have opened the discussion. Sorry for asking before time!

It feels quite weird to ask questions that are described in the feature request themselves. I don't know what the purpose of asking again and again the same thing is: just making volunteers lose their time? Shaming them for not describing things exactly as you would like? Making requests more painful?

Non-smooth is the current one.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. This is something that can be solved with CSS, and could be added to common.css, as mentioned in the feature request.

It can be done with CSS

Yes, they seem solved, but still I find that some heights are not as expected. Anyway, I have opened a subtask.

I'm sure that this is related, but I was asked to open a new ticket.

Tonight @Jdlrobson added a new !important rule to the height at Basque Wikipedia main page templatestyle, which solves "for now" the visual problem. However, having two conflicting !important rules one over the next one doesn't look like a good long-term solution.

Feel free to split this to a separate bug if necessary.

The same is happening at AvoinGLAM page:

The same is happening at AvoinGLAM page:

The Main Page is also affected, breaking things that were perfectly aligned, as it seems that heights are not respected anymore: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azala

Well... everyone using a template.

All infobox templates at Basque Wikipedia are also affected. The width is now larger, line-height is larger and the overall feeling is less compact, which doesn't make sense on some articles, with extremely large infoboxes now.

I don't know if this is the same issue: T366136

We at the Basque Wikimedians User Group are currently working on a GLAM project which may have content from museums currently available at SketchFab uploaded into Commons. It is known that this is currently impossible.

The bot is now working at Basque Wikipedian. Anyhow, it would be great to have such a feature available for every Wikimedia project, regardless of bots.

I am checking the section on mobile, and it works fine, but it doesn't show anything when using the APP. Visiting the Main page at the Wikimedia APP is not very usual (from visits data), but if we want to make this approach popular, it should work also with the APP (or be hidden instead).

Ok, now it seems that the order of the most viewed at topviews and at the cards are the same.

Yes, but not this case. The order of the articles is not the same. You can see that the most viewed is not the most viewed in the Pageviews (after removing false positives in both).

I don't know if this is related to the reported error or this is a new one, but the most viewed articles list from here: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=eu.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=yesterday&excludes=Carles%20Puigdemont|Gonzalo%20Boye are not the same that are shown here: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azala/Grid

Thanks for the link @Xover. My aim here was something more "modern-looking". You can take a look here: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azala/Grid

Thanks for the changes. Now we need [as far as I know] to things:

• Define how to translate the error messages
• Show the previous day, instead of a fixed past day

Sorry for reopening this, @KSarabia-WMF, but claiming "after thorought consideration and review" should have a link or a proof of that consideration and/or review.

Done

The last changes (https://eu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGadget-cards.js&diff=9799967&oldid=9784872) seem to be breaking the functionality. I don't know if I added the change at the correct place, as it worked before (while static on one day) and now is not working anymore.

Observed at euwiki

I don't know the details on how much this blocks the deploy of the "Explore" section in the parent task. We are planning to deliver the new Grid Main Page in a couple of weeks, when we reach the 33rd Wikipedia with most articles and the 17th in the List of articles every Wikipedia should have. I guess we can deploy it without the "Explore" section, but this was a highlight of the new design.

It can be translated, but it doesn't work.

Marking as resolved, as showing the image from Commons has been also solved with templates.

Made sections with random content for every series. It may change during the September-May season.

This is still an interesting issue, but I found a design workaround.

I have added T364253 as a subtask and marked this as stalled because of that. I think that an "Unavailable message" should be a good solution if the issue is not solved. Let me know where to create it.

Hello @Jdlrobson. We have been discussing about the new proposal and, after some tweaks, it has been accepted to launch. We have thought on doing it when we reach the 33rd position at the List of Wikipedias: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias. This will happen some day near the end of May or first days of June.

Those are not exclusive: both can be done, because they should be developed by different departments.

Both problems should be solved if the parent issue is solved. We could add videos and images from Commons without HTML and, still, we would not break any security issue.

Indeed, this is proof that it is needed and unsolved. The circular reasonement of asking volunteers to knock doors just to find that the door was closed, it was another department or it was indeed the correct door but they don't have any plans for solving issues is what creates frustration and disconnection between our written strategy and reality.

I don't think this is a duplicate, as that was an intent to do an extension, which might not be the solution we need.

Trust me, if my title empowered me to make this happen, it would have happened by now!

Then, if that remains unsolved, the ticket is still open.

Yes, it has always worked, at least as long as I've been doing it on Diff

Commons is turning 20 years in September. Imagine that, after 20 years, we are able to share media externally. That would be something interesting to have.