Talk:Limits to configuration changes/Update 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Liuxinyu970226 in topic Should there also have a section to say "Changes that aren't likely to be declined, but likely to be stalled for years/decades"?
Case parity with existing version?
edit@Martin Urbanec: Does this page include all and any cases listed on https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limits_to_configuration_changes&oldid=19304387 plus the same references? Asking as I see way less links than in the "old" version. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @AKlapper (WMF): It doesn't contain all cases, some of which aren't relevant, IMO. An example is "Remove unused accounts after 90 days" - to be honest, I saw such a request at this page only, never as a real request in Phabricator. That being said, while it's possible that it would be requested again, it's currently well-accepted that accounts can't be deleted, merely abandoned and the chances are fairly low. "Change default image sizes for thumb and gallery to 250px and 200x200px respectively" is something I don't quite get, there is (resolved) phab:T215106 as an example. On the other hand, "Disable anonymous page creation at sw.wikipedia" is included as "Disable non-autoconfirmed page creation". While I can add a see more column, and add links to references, it's not possible or reasonable to include all references, because the old version lists cases, while this page lists types of (possible, and frequent enough) cases.
- I don't see this page to document cases of all rejections, even reconsidered etc. This page should say what is likely to be declined, and put it clear that it's sysadmins who have the full authority over configuration, not the community, and that requests can (will) get rejected even without being listed. ¨
- Obviously, this is not the ready version, it's a draft showing my intentions, it can be edited, and probably will :-). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking of adding more links to Phabricator tasks (i.e., the ones linked to already in the current version, but possibly others), so users could see the original (or at least typical) discussions that led to the refusal of certain types of requests. (I haven't done any of that in my "copyedits" yet because it would slow me down significantly. [grin]) This would possibly give the best of both worlds: the text discusses the kinds of requests that are refused and some simple links like "phab:T90483" (or even "T90483") point to specific requests of each kind — but the specific cases themselves need not be discussed. - dcljr (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Should there also have a section to say "Changes that aren't likely to be declined, but likely to be stalled for years/decades"?
editI think there are some kinds of requests that are indeed stalled for several decades:
- Wiki-renaming (unless if you're asking a fishbowl/private/"wmflabs.org" domain-based wiki to be renamed);
- Changing the database name (is there any miracles be possible to let the old-sunshine RENAME DATABASE SQL command back?);
- Language conversion-related issues that affects Parsoid