[11:51:55] hey, if there are any backport deployers / anyone familiar with handling Wikimedia config change requests here, please could I ask for a second opinion on something? [11:52:09] I’m working(/hoping to work) on T406728 as my first #wikimedia-site-requests task, and there's a linked discussion on the wiki in question that seems to be in favour of the requested change — however, as best as I can tell, that discussion looks like it’s located on an equivalent of a technical village pump, rather than necessarily the main discussion page for the community. [11:52:10] T406728: [cswiktionary] Disable subpages - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T406728 [11:52:31] i suggested earlier in the task (in T406728#11259483) to maybe post a link to that proposal from the main community discussion forum (if nothing else, for the benefit of people processing config-change requests that are unfamiliar with the wiki); but AFAICS that’s not currently happened [11:52:43] and so basically, I now don’t know whether to e.g. insist on a link to the proposal being posted to the main community discussion page (i.e., before processing the config change request) or not. [11:52:47] any/all advice, opinions & feedback welcome :] [12:00:28] hey [12:00:37] technical village pump is fine [12:12:52] thanks Gry, it just worries me a bit is all as - not being personally familiar with the wiki - I feel like I have no way of knowing whether its local users would be expecting this sort of proposal there or not :) [12:14:02] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes specifies "the community portal, village pump, or other major discussion venue"... but as a person processing config change requests, i'm not sure how to know if the local community thinks of their technical village pump as a 'major discussion venue' for that purpose or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [12:29:05] A_smart_kitten: I concur that the technical village pump is sufficient in this case [12:29:55] I had a peek at `SELECT actor_name, COUNT(*) FROM recentchanges JOIN actor ON rc_actor = actor_id WHERE rc_source = 'mw.edit' GROUP BY actor_name ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC LIMIT 50` and the three most common editors in the past $wgRCMaxAge days were all involved in the discussion [12:30:17] and it’s a relatively harmless setting that (AFAIK) can always be changed back again if somebody protests [12:31:03] I don’t think we need to insist on the wider visibility of the non-technical village pump in this case :) [12:33:48] thanks Lucas_WMDE :) out of interest, do you have a sorta benchmark for e.g. what sort of thing would be 'tech village pump sufficient' vs 'please post a link to the discussion on the wiki's main forum'? [12:34:32] only thinking that if i'm gonna be processing more #wikimedia-site-requests in the future, it might be good to have an idea of what sort of thing is probably 'tech village pump sufficient' vs 'please post a link to the discussion on the wiki's main forum', lol :) [12:35:39] tbh as the deployer I usually don’t look all *that* closely at the discussion forum [12:36:08] but that just means that I’m trusting the judgment of the people processing the site requests (once I know them a bit) so it’s not a very helpful answer I suppose ^^ [12:36:29] I had some thoughts about this at https://wikis.world/@LucasWerkmeister/114347822973130909 where others also replied with useful perspectives if you’re interested [12:36:50] (the “many config changes are safe to revert again” point came from there) [12:37:43] I think I’d be fine with technical village pump, rather than village pump, most of the time. maybe not for… idk, major user groups? permanent logo / tagline changes? [12:38:40] (and the SQL query I mentioned above can be useful for cases where a wiki only has one or two active people anyways, I think there was one like that the other day. for cswiktionary it probably shouldn’t carry all that much weight) [12:40:33] fair enough :) ty for those thoughts, it's all (genuinely) very interesting and helpful to read. i just skim-read the wikis.world post/its replies and i'll read it properly when i get some more time later. thanks for the idea about the SQL query as well, that idea never occurred to me :]