See also T108293: Echo should warn users who tries to mention more than 50 other users that they won't be notified.

It's suggested we up the limit to something more practical like 50. If someone spams notifications, it's clear who's responsible, because the notifications state who mentions you.

This was originally set so low at 20 because while the person who spammed the notifications is obvious, they blamed us rather than mz.

Change 234179 had a related patch set uploaded (by Mattflaschen):
Bump mention limit to 50

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/234179

Change 234179 merged by jenkins-bot:
Bump mention limit to 50

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/234179

In T110306#1577618, @Catrope wrote:

It's suggested we up the limit to something more practical like 50. If someone spams notifications, it's clear who's responsible, because the notifications state who mentions you.

It's not just intentional spam, it's also preventing notification bombing when someone accidentally types {{WP:VPT}} instead of [[WP:VPT]] (which actually happened).

Checked in betalabs.

In T110306#1581127, @Legoktm wrote:

It's not just intentional spam, it's also preventing notification bombing when someone accidentally types {{WP:VPT}} instead of [[WP:VPT]] (which actually happened).

Eh yeah, in my memory THAT was actually the primary reason that the limit was 20. Not because people were spamming, but because they were unintentionally creating notification bombs.

In T110306#1614357, @TheDJ wrote:

In T110306#1581127, @Legoktm wrote:

It's not just intentional spam, it's also preventing notification bombing when someone accidentally types {{WP:VPT}} instead of [[WP:VPT]] (which actually happened).

Eh yeah, in my memory THAT was actually the primary reason that the limit was 20. Not because people were spamming, but because they were unintentionally creating notification bombs.

Originally, the limit was 300. That was then reduced to 100, and then to 20. The limit of 20 has been getting regular complaints, so they're raising it to 50. Suggestions/alternatives welcome. :)

@Quiddity I guess it should not be a hard-coded number but a config variable so that wikis could decide what number is best for just them.

In T110306#1806621, @Base wrote:

@Quiddity I guess it should not be a hard-coded number but a config variable so that wikis could decide what number is best for just them.

@Base, are there are problems with the configuration of 50? If so, please let us know a few details, and link us to any discussions, so that I can file a new task for that feature-request. Thank you!

(Personally, I adore configs/preferences/options/settings of all types (my rant), but developers and managers tend to request rationales, for why they need to spend time adding further complexity to the code, and also so that they can evaluate how a request should be prioritized when considered with the thousands of other feature-additions or bug-fixes or etc that they could be working on... ;-)

Wikidata's data quality seriously suffers because it currently is not possible to ping all people of big Wikiprojects to advance discussions and agree on common data modeling.

I think this task is essentially a duplicate of the more clearly Described task at T148154, so I'll merge it there now.