You provided less than a minute for consensus. :)

Just checking, are you in sync with QA? And just curious, where can I learn about Phase0, 1, 2?

In T76104#789646, @Qgil wrote:

Just checking, are you in sync with QA?

Yes; this was at @Ryasmeen's request.

And just curious, where can I learn about Phase0, 1, 2?

wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments and a few dozen other places.

Is it intentional that this are "normal" projects and not of (visual) type "Tag" as per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects#Guidelines?

In T76104#789665, @Se4598 wrote:

Is it intentional that this are "normal" projects and not of (visual) type "Tag" as per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects#Guidelines?

Yes, but I'm sure QA don't particularly care. There is an on-going project to ensure that tasks marked as resolved are actually proven to be resolved in practice, which is what these are for…

They look indeed like better suited for tags.

In T76104#789703, @Qgil wrote:

They look indeed like better suited for tags.

I agree (especially if QA don't care).

In T76104#789656, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

[...]

And just curious, where can I learn about Phase0, 1, 2?

wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments and a few dozen other places.

Based on that I assume this means the specific wiki sets/groups and so I updated the descriptions of the projects to reflect that. Please correct me if I'm wrong at this.

I'm also confused of the usage of these different terms (group/set and phase), so it would for me initially clearer if they were named Verified-in-Group2 as group seems to be the normally used term for this.

The project descriptions of those three projects should link to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.25/Roadmap unfortunately isn't a stable URL) .
These projects should be tag style.
These projects might also create slight confusion towards the already existing, generic "verified" tag (at least I want the descriptions to refer to each other and explain the differences in usage).

If there's no opposition I am going to go ahead tomorrow or so.

For future reference, I appreciate waiting a little bit longer for further feedback on such ideas, if we're not in some urgent hurry. Thanks. :)

...and I also appreciate pointers where the practice to use these new tags is documented on-wiki, as that should also definitely be part of the project descriptions.

Also, why are these projects set as "Visible To: All Users" instead of "Public"?
Please always provide reasons, as explained on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects#Policy

Currently going to e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T75378 and not being logged in I see two restricted projects (VisualEditor-Tables being the other one).

I guess "Visible To: All Users" is simply a consequence of lack of awareness of https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects#Default_policy. I have started to insist on View Public in proposals from new project creators.

In T76104#801791, @Qgil wrote:

I guess "Visible To: All Users" is simply a consequence of lack of awareness

Yeah, chatted with James and that's fixed now

In T76104#789665, @Se4598 wrote:

Is it intentional that this are "normal" projects and not of (visual) type "Tag" as per https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects#Guidelines?

Yes, but I'm sure QA don't particularly care. There is an on-going project to ensure that tasks marked as resolved are actually proven to be resolved in practice, which is what these are for…

In T76104#801766, @Aklapper wrote:

The project descriptions of those three projects should link to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.25/Roadmap unfortunately isn't a stable URL) .

The link can be changed as the current MediaWiki version requests; https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments is significantly less stable as an information resource.

These projects should be tag style.

Sure.

These projects might also create slight confusion towards the already existing, generic "verified" tag

The old Verified tag is not fit for purpose and should be marked as inactive.

(at least I want the descriptions to refer to each other and explain the differences in usage).

I see no value in using it.

For future reference, I appreciate waiting a little bit longer for further feedback on such ideas, if we're not in some urgent hurry. Thanks. :)

There was an urgent hurry. The complete absence of a viable "verified" status in Phabricator made it impossible for QA to do their jobs of marking tasks as confirmed-fixed. Phabricator might have been in its first few days, but we are still shipping live code every week, and can't wait for a few days to restart our work.

I've updated to yellow color and tag icon + added a link to the deployment train to project descriptions.

In T76104#801982, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

The old Verified tag is not fit for purpose and should be marked as inactive.

If the Wikidata team has agreed on that and also plan to use the new Verified-in-PhaseX tags instead, I'm happy to archive it.

In T76104#818733, @Aklapper wrote:

I've updated to yellow color and tag icon + added a link to the deployment train to project descriptions.

Thank you!

Verified-in-Phase0 and Verified-in-Phase2 were last used (set) in March 2019.
Verified-in-Phase1 was never used.
Is there still any use for them, or can they be archived?

I archived unused project tags Verified-in-Phase0, Verified-in-Phase1, Verified-in-Phase2 last used 27 months ago.