>>! In T78346#1060761, @Quiddity wrote:
>>>! In T78346#1038829, @GOIII wrote:
>> So until we either actively poll for as much or implement & advertise those "enhancements" to accurately gauge User: preference, etc., we're just making decisions based in conjecture & assumptions more so than in reality and facts.
> 
> The Design Research team did some investigation into editing tools. I believe they're still compiling the results, but here are the links for watchlisting: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Design/Research#Editing

My point exactly - "they" limited their concerns, polling and decision to a single project (Wikipedia) -- which has a certain scope and a specific mission -- both of which translate to almost the complete opposites as far as Wikisource is concerned (a //different// project with a //different// scope and a //different// mission). 

Wikipedia is an ongoing collaborative endeavor that expects both mainspace presentations and non-mainspace discussions to always be in a state of perpetual flux to some degree thanks to it's inherent nature where new developments = addition of new sources to support new content = new points of contentions to work through.

Wikisource, on the other hand, shares little with Wikipedia beyond also being an ongoing collaborative endeavor. Our mainspace end products are suppose to be static by design and as a result our non-mainspace discussions are mostly style guide/formatting/bug/enhancement related in nature.

What does this mean? In a nutshell (a few examples-wise), this means...
# Nobody here gives a crap about citation tools et. al anywhere near the degree to which Wikipedians do - we primarily deal with static footnotes found in the original fixed content of a specific edition of a copyright free publication. So -- while the two //feel// similar at first glance -- they are not in practice nor purpose.
# Thanks to the nature of the works being reproduced and hosted on WS, our needs for image manipulation and presentation make things like Media Viewer completely useless.
# Flow is pretty and (I guess) helpful for ongoing or complex discussions; we just don't have as many instances of this as Wikipedia seems to have. Sure, making it standard provides easier maintenance across all wikis but it won't add much "value" to our project if any at all.
# We don't attract the temp newbie contributor types in any comparable numbers nor are they likely to need toolbar dialog crutches to facilitate contributions. What prevents folks by us to break out of their specific favorites into "new" works is an easier way to customize tools to specific works & not so much the repetitive WP-like tasks. 
# ... and I could go on ad nausea

The point -- as it relates to the issue of editing/toolbars in general and development overall -- is "we" basically continue to have no say in these matters; if an editing feature or a contribution aspect is not Wikipedia- or Commons- centric, the editing needs of other projects will, at best, be an add-in, a work around or some other afterthought -- //if "we" are lucky, that is//. The [[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing_Tasks_Survey|Editing Tasks Survey]] mentioned is but another example of this....

> ... Based on the above criterion, we queried our internal data-bases for **English Wikipedia users** and found 9316 users to contact.

Doesn't seem like anything "good-for-Wikisource" can from decision making based on polling like that does it?