@Jdlrobson, do you know if there has been any further progress on this? Has this change been added to the schedule or work plan of any teams or is it still being assessed? Thanks!

@Jdlrobson thanks for laying out this plan, and thank you to all the WMF staff who are thinking about how best to do this! It looks like changes to thumbnail sizes have been talked about for years, and I hope this time we can get get it done! Please let me know if there's anything that would be helpful in terms of engaging the English Wikipedia community.

Hmm, so the nearest is 320px? That's not particularly close, given the current is 220 and the consensus was for a change to 250. A proposal was made for a change to 300 px in the prior discussion and did not gain consensus. Let me know if the WMF would find it helpful for English Wikipedians to try and reach a consensus on 320 - I'm willing to start such a discussion. But if you are technically able to get us to 250, that would be preferable! Thank you all for your work on and attention to this.

Is there a pre-generated size around 250px that would be easier to switch to? We can attempt to develop a new consensus on English Wikipedia for a relatively close size, if that helps. Given the broad general support for this measure there, I don't think it would be a huge issue.

@taavi, noted! I'm new to Phabricator so didn't fully understand the implications of the assignment.

@Jdforrester-WMF @Catrope, as you both worked on this previously (for the Swedish Wikipedia at least), tagging you for your assistance as well. Thank you to all!

This seems to be being rapidly deprioritized, if I'm reading the meaning of 'Spike' correctly. It should be a high priority. TOC limit is used on 22,000 pages for a reason - they are generally high profile pages with something exceptional happening section-wise, and they need to display the same behavior in Vector 2022. Otherwise, page usability will be severely impacted. It's an exceedingly useful tool for readers and editors alike.

Bot seems to be working pretty quickly on large numbers of links now. It acted oddly with 'Russian occupation of Kharkiv oblast' for me (300+ seconds for 1 link?) but did 52 links on 'Climate change and cities' in only about 120 seconds and also did well on a number of other articles. Thanks for the improvements!

From the other ticket, now closed:

Thanks for the work in getting the IABot working again. Several articles I tried this morning worked fine, but for one article: Tellico Dam, it didn't work. The IABot screen went blank, and when I refreshed there was a red banner error message: "Missing token: The required token was missing for this request. Please try your request again.". I have no idea what this means, or if there is anything I can do. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you to those who helped fixing it - seems to be functioning now! :) Appreciate the work.

Thirding the request for an update. Many users use this bot daily (or used to!) and it is an important part of the Wiki's long term sustainability. Let us know if there is a timeline for fixing this issue. Thank you.

@TheDJ : I see. Frankly, I don't really understand that perspective, since my understanding is that one of the WMF's primary functions is to support the community with technology and tools like this. The WMF could and should be more proactive here. I understand the community (collectively) can be challenging to deal with, but in the end we're all volunteers, while WMF staff are paid to work on things like this. It's the WMF's job (collectively) to implement MediaWiki changes and then refine them to make the community happy!

@Aklapper : to specify, is this actively being worked on by WMF staff? What timeline does the WMF see for implementation, for all IP users if not for logged-in users?

What is the status of this task, WMF? I think it would make a real difference to editor retention and new editor engagement.