Requests for comment/Limit depth of marked reverts

The following request for comments is closed. There is consensus among this RfC's participants against any change. I will note that, if you want a solution to this, you could create a Phabricator ticket (if one doesn't exist already) to have a different depth on talk pages than article pages. That, however, would be out of scope of this RfC process. Regards, Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In MediaWiki, edits that get reverted are marked with an tag that states just that. The unexpected bit is that these reverts get marked up to 15 levels deep. So, there can be an discussion on an empty talk page with 15 edits or less, an archive bot archives it all and all of the 15 edits get marked as being reverted. The reason for this is the setting mw:Manual:$wgRevertedTagMaxDepth which is set to 15. I think others can agree this is unexpected and unwanted. Below are sections for what this setting should be changed to globally.--Snævar (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change setting to 1

Change setting to 2

Change setting to 3

Change setting to 5

Change setting to 10

Leave as-is at 15

Talk page utility seems less important than article utility, where this is useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reverted tagging is by far the best improvement the software has seen in years. If anything has to change, it's the perception, so that it's understood that it's not necessarily a bad thing, not the tagging. Nardog (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes vandals make fifteen edits or more in a row ... and talk pages get plenty of vandalism. There's no need to change anything here. Graham87 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Solution in search of a problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Graham said. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with User:Nardog and User:Graham87. ArticCynda (talk)
Per Chipmunkdavis. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

While that tagging may not be as useful on a talk page, that probably shouldn't be adjusted if it is still useful as-is on content pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if archiver bots could be allowed to opt-out of the tag somehow. And if the setting could be adjusted per namespace. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think talk page maybe opt out, and content page becoming nolimit for reverted tag. Thingofme (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]