On the fourth question, give users some credit that they know what they are doing. We don't need more annoying pop-up alerts that we might be doing something wriong.

On the "open questions", if one subscribes to a H2 section, isn't it already the case that you will be notified of comments in a H3 section below it? I've never actually tested it, just assumend that's how it works. So of course if H3 subscriptions were introduced then daughter H4 comments should also be notified.

The daily logs for discussions on templates, files, categories, redirects and In the News, all have the individual discussions at H4, not H3 as stated by Novem_Linguae. It is the date heading that is at H3 and there is no H2 heading at all. The headings are like this because the daily logs (at least the ones still active) are transcluded on to the parent page under a H2 heading. Requests for page protection are at H3 as stated.

In T320865#8318739, @Anomie wrote:

I did just find a case that updates it incorrectly: viewing an old viewed revision for some reason marks everything as viewed.

My recollection is that this has never worked correctly (at least since I have been using the facility) unless one rigidly only views the oldest unreviewed edit in sequence directly from the watchlist. However, even doing that currently results in all entries being marked as viewed. It has definitely been the case that as soon as one starts clicking backwards or forwards in diff view then all edits are immediately marked as viewed wherever one is in the history.

In the header of the deletion log special page for a start, since that's where it used to be logged and people will go if they've used that search before. Possibly also the header of Special:Logs, at least temporarily until people get used to the new system.

It is not obvious to editors not involved with page curation (ie most of them) that deletion marking is to be found in the page curation log rather than the deletion log. An easy way for users to get to the correct log should be provided by pointing them to it in the relevant places.

Yes and yes. &action=edit isn't needed either. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_box/Archive_3 is enough alone to generate the "start a discussion" process. It's perfectly possible that a user could be navigating through the archives by directly changing the last character in the browser url box. Not all archive pages have navigation templates, especially the older ones.

In T312560#8100361, @Xaosflux wrote:

@Spinningspark based on your last note, would you agree this is a request for new functionality to be designed and implemented (a feature request) and not a malfunction of the existing system (a bug)?

In T312560#8062374, @Esanders wrote:

Agreed. Navigating to a non-existent archive page is certainly an edge case limited to fairly experienced users, who are unlikely to be confused by the "Start a new discussion" prompt, just as they are already ignoring the "Add topic" button. Also as @Tacsipacsi points out, determining what an archive page is (or will be) is non-trivial, and varies by language and wiki.

Note that the issue is only apparent in the rendered png, not in the original svg when clicked through to it.

In T69859#3358564, @Kudpung wrote:

There appears to still be some disparity between Page Curation, and Twinkle when Twinkle among its many other functions is being used as a page patroller tool. Ideally, specifically deletion tags, i.e. PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, AfD, should only be applied to articles by by New Page Reviewers.

It is not only Twinkle that fails to get entries in the log, even manually added templates are not logged.

Why does https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Curation#Log:Marked_for_Deletion say "This functionality works regardless of how the template is injected into the page" when it doesn't?

In T51969#3224607, @Thryduulf wrote:

When editing in VE I sometimes have to load a duplicate copy of the page in a new tab so that I can see what I'm doing.

I dislike the split-screen approach as that uses more screen estate than required and divorces the dialog from its context. I wouldn't object to dockable diaglogs appearing like that at the bottom of the screen as an option, but simply being able to move a reasonably sized box around the screen to a convenient point for the task at hand would be vastly superior imo.

...and for new versions, why not use their proactive whitelisting service? It does not appear to cost anything.

I guess if it happens again then quoting them that tracking number should smooth the process of getting back on the whitelist

I have the following reply from Symantec

No, but I have a tracking number (12200) and will follow it up in a couple of days if they don't reply

It may help if T105972 request for digital signature was resolved.

Aklapper changed the title from "Feature Request: Move log enhancement" to "Make the log also include the prior page name when moving a page"

Just knowing that the page has been moved at all would be a good start. One does not always even know to go trawling through the history for the information. The log for the article can be completely empty even though it has been moved multiple times. The move is logged at the ''old'' title.

Astonishing this is still open. I stopped using VE a year or two back because this and other problems made for an inefficient worklow. Still not time to give it another try I see.

Yes, page moves are really cluttering that list on my contributions too. For the same reason, it would be handy if creation of redirects could optionally be omitted from the list.

I have tried this with Windows 7 in Firefox 40.0, Explorer 11, Chrome 44 and Tor browser, and with XP in Firefox 39, and Explorer 7 both logged out and logged in and with math preferences set to png and MathML for all combinations.

It is, in any case, quite perverse to want to keep secret that one does not receive communication by a particular method and have people uselessly try and make contact that way. It is a bit like having one's house phone removed because it is desired not to have communication directed to one's house, but then to insist the number stays in the phone book so no one knows the phone has been removed.

I think there should be a permanent record of the ping being sent in the notifications log. It is very easy to miss the transient "your edit was saved" message and one might only start thinking about missed pings after there is no reaction to one's post.

Here is an attempted ping that was missed today by my notifications. The user did nothing obviously wrong to cause the ping to be missed. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that this is happening regularly to other users.

What may not be clear from the description is that the main issue here is over ping and mention notifications. These can be troublesome if they fail, and they often do fail for a variety of reasons. Often, it is failure on the part of the pinger meet all the requirements, but sometimes it is for inexplicable reasons, There is currently a discussion of the latter at Wikipedia Village Pump which will eventually be archived [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_133 here] (probably, or maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_133 here). Whatever the reasons for the delivery failure, the sender really needs some kind of confirmation that the notification has been sent.

In T51969#821594, @PamD wrote:

I don't know the term "dock" but I think you mean what I'd call "minimise"?

In T51969#821409, @matmarex wrote:

...and could work a lot better than clunky dragging of dialogs (which are often way too large for dragging to make sense, as they would cover most of the content anyway even when dragged aside).