Article editor (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Brycehughes (talk | contribs) support merge |
||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
*'''Don't merge''', however, a section on Visual editor should probably be added to the #Extensions subsection or something like that. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 01:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Don't merge''', however, a section on Visual editor should probably be added to the #Extensions subsection or something like that. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 01:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Disagree''': I think the scope of [[VisualEditor]] is large enough to warrant a separate article. The technical aspect of VisualEditor could still be expanded. --[[User:Article editor|Article editor]] ([[User talk:Article editor|talk]]) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Disagree''': I think the scope of [[VisualEditor]] is large enough to warrant a separate article. The technical aspect of VisualEditor could still be expanded. --[[User:Article editor|Article editor]] ([[User talk:Article editor|talk]]) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' Not notable outside the context of MediaWiki. Approximately as notable as the [[Yahoo!]] logo redesign IRL. [[User:Brycehughes|Brycehughes]] ([[User talk:Brycehughes|talk]]) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:37, 12 September 2013
MediaWiki was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Name
Since when is Wikipedia's engine named MediaWiki? The article is confusing, saying that MediaWiki was written, and then it was renamed to MediaWiki...--Chealer 08:43, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
CMS
MediaWiki is a content management system (CMS). Anyone who feels otherwise with conviction, please explain how MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thanks. --Roger Chrisman 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a wiki software, maybe "Wiki Software" is a kind of CMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.149.88 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed; a wiki is a type of CMS, as reflected on List of content management systems and Category:Content management systems. I'll note this in wiki and wiki software. -- Beland (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Quotes about MediaWiki
I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Interwiki and inter-namespace links are not references
This article currently has a large number of references consisting of interwiki or inter-namespace links. [This is a follow-up to this discussion on my user page.] It's generally a good idea to avoid both types of links in articles but this is clearly a special case because of the article's "meta" nature. All bona-fide references in the article should be to the usual third-party reliable sources. Most if not all of the interwiki or inter-namespace "references" should be converted to wikilinks in the article. If some are to be keep "footnote style", then a new footnotes group and section should be created to cleanly separate them from the references proper. Why should we avoid using references for these? A) because it gives the reader a false sense of reliability. They see the reference superscripts and assume the material is referenced by reliable sources when it isn't. B) it's just a clunky, inefficient way of using wiki-markup. It causes an extra, unneeded step to get the reader to information they might want. I propose all these be changed. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with A and I agree with B, but I don't have sufficient knowledge of en.wiki style guidelines to have an opinion. I note, however, that: 1) separating footnotes might be a good idea; 2) footnotes allow to specify the access date, which is sometimes very old; 3) converting everything to inline wikilinks could cause excessive linking compared to the standards for internal links, which can be quite harmful especially if clueless readers are sent to obscure project pages or technical manuals.
- As for the root problem of acceptable content for this article, I agree that some parts are not very well justified, for instance the link you changed is about an en.wiki gadget[1] and I'm not sure if that specific gadget among hundreds is really so relevant, ideally we'd have more sources (perhaps some more have been published in the last few years). It's also possible that some of the information contained here would be best served if moved/merged to mw: pages: for instance, the history section is very lacking here and decent there, some parts are superseded by mw:Manual:MediaWiki architecture (which is also a third-party source as it was reviewed by the editors of the book of which it's a chapter). --Nemo 22:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit for clarity?
I don't know exactly what this means: "Only on Wikipedia, more than 1000 automated and semi-automated bots and other tools have been developed to assist in editing MediaWiki sites."
If you drop the first clause ("only on Wikipedia"), then the statement is clear (I don't know if it is true).
I guess it means that 1000 bots exist that work on Wikipedia and that some or all also work on standard MediaWiki installations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.75.121 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Reader feedback: I still don't know what is M...
114.79.53.43 posted this comment on 10 June 2013 (view all feedback).
I still don't know what is Media Wiki and what is the differences between Media Wiki and Wikipedia. The pictures needs more.
I'm not sure how this could be made more clear; the intro says that MediaWiki is the software that runs the Wikipedia project, among others. -- Beland (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Though to be honest, I can understand that it's confusing. The first sentence reads
- "MediaWiki is a free wiki software application",
- which I imagine most people would think that also Wikipedia is. In addition, what is a "software application"? The fact that it powers Wikipedia is mentioned like this:
- "Developed by the Wikimedia Foundation and others, it is used to run all of the main projects hosted by the Foundation, including Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Commons".
- I rephrased this to
- "MediaWiki is a free and open source wiki software, used to power wiki websites such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Commons, developed by the Wikimedia Foundation and others".
- Is it any clearer? (I also rewrote other parts of the lead) Skalman (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Merge content in VisualEditor to this article. These two articles both provide significant coverage about VisualEditor: The Economist, PC World. However, WP:NOTNEWS is generally applicable, in which the VisualEditor topic may not merit having its own article. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained in the encyclopedia in some form. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - in my opinion, extensions almost never merit separate articles. Few even get mention in this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment For procedural reasons, starting a separate merger proposal during this AfD may confuse. I suggest participating at the AfD, and holding off/withdrawing this separate discussion. Widefox; talk 19:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Merger proposal withdrawn at this time, per the above advice. The article has been expanded with more sources, so the above nomination may be inaccurate at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed merge with VisualEditor
I propose this article be merged into MediaWiki and WP:VisualEditor. Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualEditor, it seems most people agree that this content belongs on Wikipedia but it is not notable enough to deserve its own article. Beerest355 Talk 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree (creator) article size, overlapping scopes and growing number of sources. This is a big multi-year, $M, high-profile independent software sub-project with sources indicating importance to WP (and presumably Wikia and other sites using the MW extension). We have extension articles for other software (see AfD comments). The proposed merge target isn't obvious either - this is a split WP/MW/Wikia topic, but I take the point of lack of notability from WP (more than MW). Widefox; talk 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't merge I agree with what Widefox is saying. For further comparison, check articles in Category:MediaWiki extensions; and in addition to the split to WP/MW/Wikia, it's a WMF effort. Skalman (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Merge VisualEditor into MediaWiki and WP:VisualEditor. The topic is not independently notable and the sources are generally not independent of the topic. I note that the article is already long; some of the (un-sourced or poorly sourced) content can be moved to WP:VisualEditor, especially that which cannot be merged into Mediawiki. I agree with Jasper Deng's comment above, that extensions almost never merit separate articles — this is not an exception. The discussion closer should also note the merge comments above and at this AfD for consensus. - tucoxn\talk 10:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Summary style is fine for this subtopic of WP/MW/WMF/Wikia. We have whole categories of software extensions somewhat invalidating that argument (examples in AfD) - not a policy based argument. Article size and importance, and split over several other topics is not ideal for merge. WP:VisualEditor in particular is project space so has different requirements - they'd be no space for reception which is quite notable. Care to say which is the poorly sourced content, or lacking independent? Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my rationale for merging is that this is fundamentally an extension of MediaWiki, and I think you really have to make a strong case for having a separate article on a mere extension.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what? See Category:MediaWiki extensions, Category:Firefox add-ons, Category:Mozilla add-ons and one I created Category:Google Chrome extensions. Similarly, official extension articles exist like Venkman, DOM Inspector & ChatZilla (SeaMonkey). As for the AfD comments, the article has been improved so a fresh discussion was suggested due to the comments there being for previous revisions. If you want to encourage new users to edit the #6 most popular website with the most significant change to it, then why scatter the only article on it? Widefox; talk 10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my rationale for merging is that this is fundamentally an extension of MediaWiki, and I think you really have to make a strong case for having a separate article on a mere extension.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Summary style is fine for this subtopic of WP/MW/WMF/Wikia. We have whole categories of software extensions somewhat invalidating that argument (examples in AfD) - not a policy based argument. Article size and importance, and split over several other topics is not ideal for merge. WP:VisualEditor in particular is project space so has different requirements - they'd be no space for reception which is quite notable. Care to say which is the poorly sourced content, or lacking independent? Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Don't merge, however, a section on Visual editor should probably be added to the #Extensions subsection or something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree: I think the scope of VisualEditor is large enough to warrant a separate article. The technical aspect of VisualEditor could still be expanded. --Article editor (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Support Not notable outside the context of MediaWiki. Approximately as notable as the Yahoo! logo redesign IRL. Brycehughes (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)