Article quality was the specific thing I was considering. While FA/GA are indicated on a the page proper due to a couple of templates, the other levels in the scheme are not. So a system must either use MediaWiki-extensions-PageAssessments or go and parse that data from the talk page. The extension existing is probably easier to deal with. :^)

(I don't know how widely deployed page assessments are outside en.wp either, so this may be a prioritization point.)

I don't know if there are other talk page properties for which a knob makes sense that aren't already covered elsewhere e.g. by edit notices.

I'd made of list of categories that I think we probably want to exclude from these sorts of features, at least for newcomers. The main complexity for these is indeed how non-universal the systems are outside of Enwiki, but that's a different topic, so FWIW:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_controversial_topics (3,200 articles - N.b. Only this category exists in multiple other languages (10), a few of which use it in the same way).
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_under_general_sanctions (1,200 articles)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_pages_subject_to_a_one-revert_restriction (~9,500 articles)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_pages_about_contentious_topics (21,000 articles)

Plus this category that is only attached to the Template:Editnotice/... subpages, not the articles themselves, as Izno mentions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_arbitration_enforcement_current_sanctions (7,300 articles)

Re: PageAssessments usage: A handful of wikis use it. The config is at https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php#:~:text=wmgUsePageAssessments

Notes

• Complexity of tasks depends entirely on whether an API call is available for whatever information we want the configuration to depend on.
  • E.g. there seem to be API calls for fetching what categories are present within an arbitrary page. 1 2.

Assuming we created the following new configurations: talkPageHasTemplate, talkPageLacksTemplate, talkPageInCategory and talkPageNotInCategory, do we expect talkPageLacksTemplate and talkPageNotInCategory to be true or false if the talk page does not exist at all?

Personally I would default to true. Might be worth considering also adding a configuration to check if the talk page exists.

This is probably more a technical question, but from a usability perspective I would also default to true for those non-existing talk pages since I assume a talk page that doesn't exist will not contain templates or categories.

Change #1346020 had a related patch set uploaded (by VCioffi; author: VCioffi):

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] editchecks: Add configuration to check talk page details

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1346020

@VCioffi-WMF + @bmartinezcalvo: +1 to what you all proposed above: let's set talkPageLacksTemplate and talkPageNotInCategory to true if the talk page does not exist at all for the reason Bárbara named. [i]

i. "...a talk page that doesn't exist will not contain templates or categories."

In T435242#12356439, @VCioffi-WMF wrote:

... Might be worth considering also adding a configuration to check if the talk page exists.

@VCioffi-WMF: good spot. can you please file a new ticket for this and tag it with EditCheck and VisualEditor Suggestion Mode

In T435242#12387569, @ppelberg wrote:

good spot. can you please file a new ticket for this

Thanks, created: T439929