Is this change important enough that it needs to be noted in the release notes?

How do we decide which Wikimedia sites to keep in the table? Are we limiting it to actual wikis? I notice we have wikimedia: on there, but not policy: which is on the interwiki map.

Can we agree in this task on some stuff to cut out of the table, and then file separate tasks proposing adding other stuff?

So I'm thinking the ones that will be kept will be:

In T17441#197659, @Parent5446 wrote:

If this is being actively worked on, I'd like to note one other thing that should probably be changed along with this: a lot of our tables have primary keys, but also don't at the same time. Basically, the maintenance/tables.sql file doesn't list the table as having a primary key, but MySQL behavior is to choose the first non-null unique key as use it as a primary key anyway. In other words, the tables don't *look* like they have primary keys in their definitions, but they actually do when created. It'd be simpler and less misleading to just explicitly declare the primary keys.

So what's the upshot? Should the addition of user_properties.up_id be removed from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/313670/ ?

Will this patch completely resolve this task, or are there more primary keys that remain to be added?

Oh, so I guess user_properties actually does have a unique index? Does it still need a primary key, then?

What should we call the primary key? un_id? unt_id? user_newtalk_id? I was thinking, maybe down the road we would want to use the un_ prefix for something more important.

Other useful parameters could include the prefixed page title and the revision ID presented as a clickable link to [[Special:Diff/xxx|revision xxx]].

The same logic or principle that justifies T145991 might also justify this. When two separate rows in the page table are modified by an action, this should be recorded as two separate events.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to implement this. The patch I wrote simply changes the checkbox to a "Show redirects" checkbox rather than a "Hide redirects" checkbox. But should there be a config setting that will allow the wiki owners to choose the default behavior?

In T17441#2665316, @jcrespo wrote:

Note that some of the above (T17441#2658709) are scheduled for deletion or further alters are proposed for short term (oldimage -> image archive).

I created this nifty maintenance script to retroactively populate the thanks log with revision IDs. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Tjlsangria/populateThanksLogParams.php

What do you want to call the $wg setting?

I've written a hack that doesn't require you to set a $wg; it would just be a 5::revid parameter that you could display by changing MediaWiki:Logentry-thanks-thank to, e.g., $1 thanked $3 for revision $5.

I think the box should be checked by default.