I just updated the link in the description to more modern mockups showing the feature.

This task is ready for engineering investigation. If we figure out feasible ways to do this, we will move it back to the "Needs Design" column.

I re-specified specifications in the task description in how to deal with broken links, and this is now ready for development. We still believe that our way of handling the broken links is not ideal, but we can revisit it.

Assigning this first to @Cntlsn to think through various options and make suggestions on some of the strongest approaches. We'll then discuss and develop designs.

@revi @Urbanecm -- this is the task for making sure that full translations exist for the homepage, which we would like by April 18. We just updated the QQQs today, so please double-check the translations if they exist for some of the messages.

@Cntlsn -- that's the right one. Thanks.

Thanks, @kostajh and @nettrom_WMF.

Thanks, @nettrom_WMF. Those answers help.

@kostajh -- so you're saying that the email module has two states in the sense that the checkmark is either green or not green? From the product design perspective, I definitely consider it to have three states: no email, unconfirmed email, and confirmed email. I think we should distinguish between all three.

I am putting this back in @Etonkovidova's column to take another pass with the updated requirements and updated layout. @Etonkovidova -- how do you test the email functionality if Beta can't send emails?

@Cntlsn -- I changed the specifications to indicate that there is a heavy drop shadow when the Start module is incomplete, and no drop shadow when it is complete.

@sbassett -- in a conversation with @JBennett the other week, we talked about separating out the ability to view any user's Impact module via Special:Impact from the ability to see their whole homepage. Seeing their Impact module is our higher priority, and the thing we want to make sure is okay soonest. @kostajh can fill in details about the distinction if needed.

This is now on my plate to get findings on wiki.

We discussed this as a team, and we decided not to instrument all the personal tools. We'll get what we need from the HomepageVisits schema and EditorJourney.

@Cntlsn -- I think you should plan to organize your various design concepts into a slideshow so that it will be easy to discuss as a team. The slideshow can describe the pros and cons with the design choices. Here is an example set of slides around design concepts: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13mDD8DlMAJP6blIXhTeozSP_BS-_z7Ea2rNGoqqIGJY/edit#slide=id.p

@jeblad -- thanks for pointing out that this task was hard to understand. I just updated the description with some links and hopefully clearer language. Does that help? We've actually also recommended this task as something someone could work at Wikimedia Hackathon in May.

Now that @Cntlsn has done his review, this should go back into In Progress for @SBisson to make the change about font size and color.

@SBisson -- I struck through the parts of the task description that are not relevant to the schema being built in this task.

I just glanced over this, and I think it looks good. The only questions I have are:

@Catrope -- you wrote up some great documentation on deploying ORES. Could you please post it here for @Harej and explain what parts of the process your documentation was meant to cover?

Thanks, @nettrom_WMF -- this helps. So depending on the wiki, we can expect between 15% and 30% of newcomers to encounter the homepage on their first day (with no additional features that drive them there). My main takeaway is that we should prioritize feature work that drives users there, so that more than that smallish percentage get exposed.

I am re-opening this task because although we already asked the community about why they think the abandonment rate might be behaving this way, and we've already run the Variation A experiment, we still want to figure out who those abandoning users are. This is important because we want to eventually turn the welcome survey back on for Vietnamese (it was turned off in T218920.

@Urbanecm -- would you be interested in helping lead this session? You obviously have good knowledge and perspective for this topic. If so, please add your name to the list.

This is a valid issue, and is one of many issues having do with moderation in Structured Discussions. Because the WMF is currently working with communities on the Talk Pages Consultation, the Growth team isn't going to work on addressing these moderation issues one at a time -- because the consultation may point toward a different set of features for communication.

We talked about this on the Growth team, in a conversation with @Catrope and @Trizek-WMF. We think that since we haven't heard any strong justification for this change, and since no other users have asked for it, that we don't want it to be merged. We are concerned that we would be changing behavior needlessly. If people have strong justifications for why the behavior in RecentChanges should be different, then let's definitely have that conversation. I am declining this task.

Leaving this in progress because the next step is to get results from this experiment on mediawiki.org. This is not urgent.

Leaving this in progress because the next step is to get these findings on mediawiki.org. This is not urgent.

@Cntlsn -- I did not feel strongly about the blue header. It's good to know about the reasons for taking it away. Those reasons make sense to me.

Tagging @Urbanecm for ideas on how to do this -- he had some thoughts during our meeting today.

I think that's a question for @nettrom_WMF. @kostajh, are you sure the copy/paste worked right? It looks cut off to me.

I updated the task description to match the changed business rules in the mockups.

I added the color codes to the task description.

@Cntlsn -- thanks for adding the mockups. I put the specifications on the task.

@SBisson -- in the table below, I've proposed some alternate rules. Basically, I don't think we need to tack days onto the end once someone is over one week old. But I do think it would be better to have months. Have you found an option for including months?

Okay, sorry, I didn't know it was riding the train. This sounds fine.

Assigning to @Trizek-WMF so he can track it.

@nettrom_WMF -- could you please look this over and make any changes? Then it will be ready for development.

@Trizek-WMF -- I want our team to be able to decide how to proceed. Could you take a look at this, so you and I can discuss it?

@Etonkovidova @SBisson -- I still see this inconsistency in size in production. Do I need to clear my cache or something?