This does not show consensus; in fact, it shows quite the opposite, if I'm not mistaken.

bdamokos wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

This does not show consensus; in fact, it shows quite the opposite, if I'm not
mistaken.

The discussion can be summarized as follows:
Tgr proposes the feature to be enabled, and given that it should be uncontroversial, asks that instead of a vote, people who oppose it express their opinion.

OsvátA says: "Let's not vote, instead make this happen already!"

Raziel and Peligro mention that a similar article rating feature is already enabled and not used on huwiki perhaps because it blends into the site too much, and Peligro concludes that the more noticeable version might be more effective.

About one and a half week passes without no further comment or opposition, I ask Tgr whether he has gone ahead with opening the bug report.

Given the hopefully uncontroversial nature of the feature and the fact, that it was not heavily opposed I would conclude that there is enough tacit support in the community to enable the features.

"that it was not heavily opposed"—in fact, it was not opposed at all.

Do we actually have consensus? The lack of votes seems a bit strange

It still also says pending

bdamokos wrote:

(In reply to comment #4)

Do we actually have consensus? The lack of votes seems a bit strange

The opening post in that section argued (and I tend to agree) that both extensions only improve functions already present in huwiki (the ability to give barnstarns, and the article rating feature from flaggedrevs) and therefore should not be controversial – hence, a vote was deemed unnecessary unless people came forward to express their opposition, which they did not.

I am sure, we could arrange to discuss it till eternity and hold a formal vote, but that would seem a bit of an overreaction in the current case. (The proposal was posted in one of the most frequented community pages with plenty of traffic on the days since, if people did not agree with the proposal, they would have expressed themselves).

It still also says pending

The template is there to make sure the archiver bot does not archive the given section, and it is pending in the sense that the raison d'être of the section ("enable the features") has not been accomplished.

(In reply to comment #5)

(In reply to comment #4)

Do we actually have consensus? The lack of votes seems a bit strange

The opening post in that section argued (and I tend to agree) that both
extensions only improve functions already present in huwiki (the ability to
give barnstarns, and the article rating feature from flaggedrevs) and therefore
should not be controversial – hence, a vote was deemed unnecessary unless
people came forward to express their opposition, which they did not.

I am sure, we could arrange to discuss it till eternity and hold a formal vote,
but that would seem a bit of an overreaction in the current case. (The proposal
was posted in one of the most frequented community pages with plenty of traffic
on the days since, if people did not agree with the proposal, they would have
expressed themselves).

It still also says pending

The template is there to make sure the archiver bot does not archive the given
section, and it is pending in the sense that the raison d'être of the section
("enable the features") has not been accomplished.

No, that's fine if that's the way your wiki does things. As you'll probably know, we usually experience the usual enwiki votes and arguments.

Enabled, then I realised you haven't created http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:WikiLove.js

See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WikiLove#Requests_for_Additional_Deployment and then it should be all ok for you

bdamokos wrote:

Thanks Reedy, it seems to be working after I created the wikilove.js.

What would be needed for it to be enabled by default?

(In reply to comment #8)

Thanks Reedy, it seems to be working after I created the wikilove.js.

What would be needed for it to be enabled by default?

Setting wmgWikiLoveDefault to true for huwiki.

Want me to do that?

Done it

bdamokos wrote:

Thanks!