The more experience a user has, the more they should shift away from using the Impact module and toward the Toolforge Edit counter tool, which contains all of the Impact stats (except for 'streak', which is probably the least valuable of them, especially when one is no longer a newbie).

I got an error trying title_asc, and the message suggested title_natural_asc, which worked. Can someone explain the reason for the label change? What's wrong with "title_asc", and can that be aliased to the new value, as it is a guessable label while the actual one is not? (Ditto title_natural_desc.) Thanks.

Thanks for this! Are the two ids above the only ones that were added? What about the Suggested Edits module?

I would modify the story from:

Adding @EEng .

I created redirect Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/9 ⟶ */X, so no need to special code that part.

I will create a redirect from ...9 to ...X so it picks it up. That should be sufficient, as long as we skip the Z.* rows, place there strictly as a copy-paste model. If I place <noinclude>...</noinclude> around those rows, would that work for you? I.e., skip converting anything within noinclude tags. If not, we'll find another solution.

In T411559#11432263, @AAlhazwani-WMF wrote:

That makes a certain amount of sense. It has two pieces to it, do you think we can just split those out as two tasks? It's not like we can skip them. Presumably if it were a more usual software release with a lot of components, they would all have to be listed in a release checklist somewhere so the release would work. This is just a very simple release, but shouldn't we still name the steps, even if there are only two? Maybe I've forgotten some steps, but if there is no place to hang them, then maybe they won't get recorded.

Renamed (was: ''Design and automatically generate RSP source subpages') because T414760 ('Design RSP source subpages') was split off from this one because they have different dependencies.

Currently listed with dependency on T414747 RSP page locations, and that is true for the final run that creates the source pages in the correct, soon-to-be-live locations, but for test runs pre-cutover it has no blockers (except the design part of this one, if we split that out).

Do we want to split this in two? Clearly the page design comes first, and creation is dependent (therefore, a subtask).

It seems to me we may want to define this manual step in more detail, or split it up into multiple tasks, effectively triaging them on the basis of overall project releasability. If we think about the goal of cutover from the legacy system (table) to the new system (index page + subpages/landing pages), some manual steps *must* be done before that, there may be some that *should* (but not must) be done before, and others which *may* be done before that but that could happen after cutover, either planned, or organically, on an as-we-have-time basis.

Drop 'pre-modification' from the task name as already implied by 'automatic'. Feel free to undo/alter, if you meant something other than the post-autogen, manual modification step there.

I was quoting; @Sgs raised it. ☺

Random note: I casually stumbled into the fact that Special:Impact is translated to Especial:Incidencia. Incidencia means incident in spanish. Which is far from the correct meaning for the page. Is this something to rise with the community? Or maybe @IZapico-WMF can make the change if it's not problematic?

In T411559#11427873, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

. . . From my perspective, I understand how the labels can be misleading, especially in edge cases.

Internally, we have a mentor pool, which contains usernames of registered mentors. By default (when on the "Average" setting), everyone is in the pool twice. If someone changes their settings to "twice the average", their username will be in the pool four times. In case they set themselves to "half the average", their username will be in the pool only once. Whenever a new account registers, a random username is taken from the pool, which is the mentor we're assigning to that user. The number of times a mentor's username is in the pool is called the mentor's weight.

I am not sure if this comment should in fact be a separate task or not, but fwiw:

Echoing the wish in T403775 (merged here) for sort by page name.

Couldn't a relatively low-tech solution solve this, at least on an interim basis while the underlying problem is dealt with? I would propose a change which for mobile only, would transform transclusions of a Navbox template into links to the Navbox template page itself. There would be nothing to expand; just a bar that looks like a Navbox title bar, but in reality is just a link with nothing hiding under it. This seems doable in the {{Navbox}} template itself.

@ppelberg, this is in response to your original, seedling post, and in particular, how to mitigate any damage to editor retention that may occur when an editor's first interaction with a Wikipedian is a warning on their user talk page, typically topped with a dry, ==Month YYYY== header. I am involved with two activities that result in messages on the user talk pages of new users:

• as a member of the Welcoming Committee, I welcome new members, mostly via one of the Welcome templates; I also improve Welcoming Committee templates and procedures;
• placing warnings about violations of Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, usually via one one of the warning templates (WP:WARN) to protect the encyclopedia.

In T356471#11150787, @Alenoach wrote:

For the addition, it could potentially be a big deal, but unlike for the removal it's more about readability than bug fix.

[edited] If this concerns only edits involving the Reply tool, then my original comment here is invalid. It involved a test of Talk:Armenian genocide/Fadix Analysis (594,038 bytes), and PP data showed CPU = 0.275 and Real = 0.287. Sounds like this is not relevant here, as this test did not use the Reply tool, but if it is, I will restore the comment.

I have started discussion Wikipedia talk:Short description#Android app instruction to users about SD in order to solicit feedback from the users most familiar with Short descriptions about how they might word the text on the Android app. Hopefully we will see some good responses there.

A data point: this happened to me today. Details at WP:VPT. The silent recreation is very confusing, and I didn't suspect it at first, viewing it as a failure of the history tab to show all versions. The truth eventually dawned on me as I investigated further, and as @PrimeHunter kindly added this tracking link.

Subscribed myself. (Apologies for this pointless comment—I used to be able to add myself as a subscriber by hitting Submit on an empty comment as recently as a few days ago, but apparently no longer.)