Copied comment from over there: adding as a blocked task because if the magic linking code is going to be addressed it should be done properly, rather than a hacky workaround in the notifications code.

Adding that as a blocking task because if the magic linking code is going to be addressed it should be done properly, rather than a hacky workaround in the notifications code.

@Quiddity - sincere apologies. I was reading on my phone and completely misinterpreted the diff. All good.

I agree that pages in the draft namespace shouldn't get a "publish" button. If anything, an action somewhere in the UI labelled "publish" that is actually "move this draft to mainspace" would be a useful feature. That's obviously outside the scope of this task.

@Quiddity, I object strongly to the change to the task description that you've made. You replaced a decade-old high-level request with a specific, and Byzantine, feature implementation proposal.

In T135000#2285328, @Krenair wrote:

What about Special:RecentChanges? Special:Watchlist should be more like that than Special:Log IIRC

See also T49402 (Better diff for revision deletions: Show indicator of what visibility restrictions were set or unset).

Sorry for late entry of an external commenter into this discussion.

Is this still valid now that we have global accounts?

Someone's fixed it.

Note: SUL finalization has removed the "local users" referred to in the original bug report from 2006. However as far as I'm aware the import tool is still setting rev_user = 0 (T111605). Once that's been dealt with, the possibility is there for a cleanup script to be developed to fix attribution on all imported edits.

Account unification happened (hooray!) so this is no longer necessary.

That's not a requirement for filing enhancement tasks. Disregarding for now the unreasonable nature of a request to find people talking about an idea that I just had, doing so wasn't a requirement in any of the previous tasks I filed, either. Rather than being met with a demand to justify their existence, those tasks have either been implemented, started being implemented, merged, or, for the most part, left to accumulate comments over years, as normal.

Is the patch attached to this still valid?

The answer to all your questions is "it's a user preference, so let it happen if they want it".

The link to the sample conversion in the description of this task is broken.

In T122961#1920356, @Aklapper wrote:

In T122961#1919242, @Alsee wrote:

As the final step of the Trial, I am interested to see the outcome of the software for converting all of the the Flow discussions back to Talk format.

@Alsee: Could you please bring up general Flow questions / discussion on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Flow as this Phabricator task is specifically about removing Flow from enwp's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast. Thanks for your understanding!

In T122961#1919242, @Alsee wrote:

As the final step of the Trial, I am interested to see the outcome of the software for converting all of the the Flow discussions back to Talk format. Thanx.

jake wrote in the description of this bug:

Right now when an unprivileged user tries to view a deleted diff they are told that the revision has been hidden, but no why or who by.

In T25730#273879, @Nemo_bis wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

Next useful thing to do would be a warning with a revision-specific log to be
shown when viewing the diff (as you see the deletion log when you open a
deleted page).

This is bug 21175.

In T23175#244971, @Nemo_bis wrote:

See also bug 23730.

@lfaraone, what's the story with this?

Better solution would be tagging as @Bawolff suggests.

In T118455#1801267, @Bawolff wrote:

Perhaps this would be better as a gadget then a change in MW. All the various wikis have different automated tools and it doesn't really make sense to hard code based on edit summary, within MW

This should probably be closed - preferences for these tools are likely to be set on the tools themselves instead, which is better. See T33881.

In T50615#1785794, @matmarex wrote:

I'm going to merge it next Tuesday, after branch cut. It will be included in 1.27.0-wmf.7, which is due to be deployed to Wikimedia wikis on 17-19 November 2015 per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.27/Roadmap.

Every way to examine changes made to the database (edits, deletions, etc.) should be filterable by namespace. Being able to filter Special:Log/delete by namespace is particularly useful for improving the accountability of administrators.

In T100508#1735103, @Tobi_WMDE_SW wrote:

@Scott just want to point out that this feature was requested some time ago too. Probably not a decade ago, but almost. See T8964.

Oh, of course, these days it would also involve renaming the other account. Well, I'll ask there. Thanks Steinsplitter.

In T100508#1721540, @Addshore wrote:

As for the request above for multiple watch lists T3492 these things should be done separately and realistically don't actually overlap very much.
Of course general re factoring and tidy up will help both..

If any work is being done on this fairly complex development, could serious thought please be given to implementing multiple watchlists (T3492) either as part of it, or first, which have been requested as a core feature since at least 2005.

I've merged this task from 2007 into a task from 2005 that addresses the core topic of multiple watchlists in a general fashion.

Okay, thanks for letting me know.

In T106069#1646083, @Keegan wrote:

No sorry needed, my mistake. I was unaware of that artifact. Thank you for teaching me.

Please see commentary on parent task, this doesn't need to be done.

Sorry Keegan, you've misunderstood. These edits belong to Mirwin. That IP-style user name is an artifact of the Stage II import process and doesn't represent a user that needs a global account. As I mentioned above, read T5631 for an explanation of its significance.

Thanks Graham. Okay, so from the name of that list (@Nemo_bis's own, I see) it's bug T2323 for those.

In T106941#1633839, @Nemo_bis wrote:

Actually, since you've made those part of the topic of this bug (good idea), could you run a query to identify how many of them there are?

Were they all truncated to 2+2 digits? Hostnames were also valid back in the days, some of them are quite short.

Reopening as I've found some more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/12.45.50.xxx (including the creation of some major articles!). See T5631 for the background on the user name.