zhuyifei1999 added a comment.
In T235811#5657872 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T235811#5657872>, @Aklapper wrote: > @zhuyifei1999: #Commons <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/commons/> is a project tag dedicated to Commons issues and it is set on this task, so this feels like a valid task under #Commons <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/commons/>. In the general case, bringing on-wiki matters, such as templates, modules, gadgets, (and, workflows, proposals, etc.), into phab is ineffective. Those who maintain such pages (templates, modules, gadgets) are very unlikely to be watching the entire #commons <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/commons/> tag to be notified about the issues at all, it would be likely your (Bugwrangler's) burden to notify the corresponding maintainers of the gadget of the issues with the those pages. In addition, they are often reports from non-technical users who may make reports that are simply not "effective". Keeping on-wiki matters on wiki, especially under the concerning pages' talk pages, noticeboards, user talk pages, make the issue much more likely to be known. The maintainers are more likely to watch them than a single than a giant group project tag on phab. Exceptions do exist, but they are a minority. In addition, many wiki-editors are more used to using the wiki interface than to the phab interface. Issues will eventually be reported on-wiki because the some reporters prefer one less extra step of learning how to use phab. Tracking an issue on both phab and wiki would be, redundant. The purpose of these phabricator projects to non-technical users has been a bridge between them and developers <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1118/>. This is in general a bridge between the community and the developers. But the cases where the concerned code is made from within the community... is the bridge really needed? That said, this task is different. Usually, a script is broken because some HTML class change, module rename, API change, etc, which are usually not too difficult to fix in one edit or two on-wiki. This one is an extension change that completely broke the assumptions the script is running under, and made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the script to return to its original behavior. These sort of issues needs attention from extension developers, who are typically more likely to be using phab to track their issues. (Why? Because unlike gadgets / modules / templates, Extensions are privileged (as in, high standards) and often global.) Even if this particular extension in concern is only deployed to Commons, those with a skillset to develop such an extension are still the similar people. Now that it is asked to move the gadget in-house (extension), that makes this issue no longer an on-wiki matter, but an extension matter. So yes, this task is valid, but it is just an exception in an usually on-wiki matter of gadgets, modules, and templates. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T235811 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: zhuyifei1999 Cc: egardner, Mike_Peel, Jdforrester-WMF, Abit, Masumrezarock100, zhuyifei1999, Jmabel, Aklapper, JKSTNK, Lahi, PDrouin-WMF, E1presidente, Ramsey-WMF, Cparle, Anooprao, SandraF_WMF, Tramullas, Acer, Salgo60, Silverfish, Poyekhali, Taiwania_Justo, Susannaanas, Ixocactus, Wong128hk, Jane023, Wikidata-bugs, Base, matthiasmullie, El_Grafo, Dinoguy1000, Ricordisamoa, Wesalius, Lydia_Pintscher, Fabrice_Florin, Raymond, Steinsplitter, Keegan
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
