From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee MediaWiki was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


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)

Proposed merge with VisualEditor[edit]

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)
  • 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 VE not notable outside the context of MediaWiki. Approximately as notable as the Yahoo! logo redesign IRL. Brycehughes (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few software extensions have separate articles: scope, article size, and use in different contexts (especially for open source extensions), like with Wikia for this. Widefox; talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Emphasis on IRL. Brycehughes (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:Summary style in any case covers a technical reason why it may be a good idea to breakout larger articles even if one did conclude lack of independent notability (which I have sympathy for, although the it's more useful for new editors to have a separate shorter article than the info be lost/scattered in bigger ones). Widefox; talk 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Brycehughes (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Care to say why? Widefox; talk 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking me to explain why WP:SUMMARY STYLE doesn't contain what you say it contains? Brycehughes (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
yes. Widefox; talk 23:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
What an odd thing to ask! I would assume that no editor ever added a notability exception on technical grounds. Or perhaps an editor added it once upon a time and then it was subsequently removed. That's generally how these things go. Let me know if you think of any other possible explanations. Brycehughes (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping contradiction would be followed by a counterargument rather than by responding to tone. "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.". yes WP:AVOIDSPLIT details how must meet WP:GNG which the sourcing does. The example Yosemite National Park, History of the Yosemite area - are history and list articles really independent topics or should they be merged due to lack of independent notability? A closer example Firefox, History of Firefox , Firefox 3.6 etc. They're all Firefox so size (in my opinion) determines the reality of these articles rather than truly 100% independent topics. Size and utility based arguments do come in, rather than pure independent topic arguments. This technical reason is for not merging due to size (rather than a technical reason for notability), an argument someone else said in the AfD. WP:DETAIL covers different audiences needs, which I think common sense would swing this to be sensible to have as an unmerged article for the new editor audience which interact with the edit interface but not the rest of MediaWiki. Important to note that technically a summary style should grow inside the main article and be spun out later, but this article started around a sensible cross-wikispace redirect. Widefox; talk 14:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The Yahoo! logo redesign, being covered by numerous media sources, would also qualify under WP:GNG by your same logic. But that doesn't mean it gets a standalone page. Yes, WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Brycehughes (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with you in theory (not sure if my logic, certainly my interpretation of WP:Summary style and the reality of some articles I've seen), although in practice it may naturally grow and if enough content to make a substantial article only then a breakout would be sensible. We're not there yet though are we, so it's logically similar....although in practice.. (I'm not up to date with Yahoo, so cannot comment on how important it is described in sources) ... the weighting may be the crucial difference. VE - "the most important WP change" but I suspect logo redesign may be a lesser weighted issue (so purely size argument above), so never reaches its own article. It's quite ironic that the article is a controversial merge, feels like a thankless task for single handedly creating it. I repeat..the article location was first a cross-wikispace redirect already. For anyone considering merging, what's the plan for that? We're talking about new editors too, so I don't think I have to invoke IAR, I consider the different audiences in summary style cover it. We got a question from an editor about why it vanished, and so we're helping IMHO. Looking forward to the technical details being fleshed out, as I suspect it's not a simple project for the developers. Widefox; talk 10:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If VE is too long, then perform a selective merger, instead of a full merger. Shorten it. Summarize. VE is simply not notable enough to qualify for its own article, nor is it important enough to dominate the MW article. Brycehughes (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Who's to say it's too long. There's (currently) no consensus to merge, in fact several of us want to expand the technical side as this is currently lacking. What's the plan? redirect or create a DAB? does anyone have an answer to: 1. so redirect to a section right? 2. which target (with possible reasoning): a) MW (technical), b) WP (notability), c) WMF (project), d) Wikia (minor partner), e) WP project space (bulk of info)? 3. what about that last one - the original WP project space redirect? The notability comes from WP, but we're discussing on MW. How does any of that help new editors per WP:DETAIL? Doable yes, desirable? (new editors being a rationale of the VE project). Widefox; talk 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're making this too complicated. Merge with MW. Redirect to section. Edit for brevity. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to for new editors. Brycehughes (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Provide no link at all for 3.? You'd need consensus for that, same as removing the current hatnotes! It is standard to provide help, let alone for new users. Widefox; talk 02:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Link to WP:VisualEditor. Brycehughes (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
two hatnotes in the section? This page is a more common style, will grow still, is easier for new editors, and simple. Widefox; talk 10:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, two hatnotes. Brycehughes (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We clearly differ on what's simple, easy and useful for the target audience of the article and hatnotes. Widefox; talk 20:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we differ on whether article length and article audience predicate exceptions to WP:GNG. They do not. Brycehughes (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Does it meet GNG as a notable WP (or MW) topic? yes (although some aspects are WP:NOTNEWS). No exception needed. That may be a false dichotomy? WP:NOPAGE has WP:NNC - this is due weight and the size doesn't fit in the parent article. "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so." We differ in consideration of that. The only exception asked for is in chronology of AVOIDSPLIT - it already existed as an important cross-project redirect. Should that editor have created a redirect to a section, then a section hatnote? I'd say no. You've made a very strong guideline based case, yes, but IMHO at the expense of the helpfulness - pull back - these are guidelines. What's useful for readers? Summary style covers audiences and GNG is not violated IMHO. The guidelines are just that - they detail our best practice, not rule what we do like policies. The usefulness of the cross-projectspace and an article at that location is I consider good practice, covered by the guidelines, and certainly by the policies. Widefox; talk 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. For one, the VisualEditor article is already larger than any other individual section in the MediaWiki article. Secondly, though the VisualEditor is being written by the Wikimedia Foundation and integrated first with MediaWiki, it is designed as a general-purpose WYSIWYG editor that can be integrated into other software. In other words, though it might not look like it right now, it's a separate project altogether, and accordingly deserves its own page. DavidPKendal (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree, (also by Wikia). The re-use/forking of open source projects naturally leads to a separate sub-article having a different scope to the main. As an ambitious undertaking of the WMF, the effect on WP is also notable. The idea of shoehorning it all into a large mature article, especially when considering an audience of beginner editors is somewhat counterproductive to the project IMHO. Widefox; talk 20:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. There is already a request for expansion on that page (for technical details), so it seems odd to want to shrink it down so that it becomes a section of another page. -Thunderforge (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, for reasons above, plus this new one: the WMF VisualEditor may not end up being the default MediaWiki editor, or may have competition. WP:CRYSTAL says it should stay separate. Of course, it certainly satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY, and should be mentioned in this article, without giving it WP:UNDUE compared to the classic wikitext way of editing (aka "mainstream science"), nor relative to any as-yet-hypothetical competitors. HTH. (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I need the template codes so i can use them in other wikis[edit]

I been ask to remove my wiki and trasfer it to wikia can you please email me the template codes so that i can use the code i made for my wiki.

Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk) Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You may download the code for any Wikipedia template by simply clicking on the "Edit this page" or "View source" tabs on the top of the relevant template page. (For example, if you want the source code for the {{Infobox peerage title}} template, just visit that page, click on the "Edit this page" link, and then copy the source code to your local machine.) You can then recreate the template at Wikia. For the most part, the process will not be so simple though, as the templates largely rely on other coding present at Wikipedia that may not be present at Wikia. For example, the infobox template creates a table with the HTML code
<table class="infobox" ...> ... </table>
This only works because Wikipedia has an infobox class defined within its CSS files. If Wikia does not have this class defined, the infobox won't render properly. You are better off using the templates that are already available at Wikia to reproduce the formatting you desire. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


"MediaWiki provides many features beyond hyperlinks for structuring content." The article hardly mentions hyperlinks, not to mention "hyperlinks for structuring content". What's that all about. --Marshall "Unfree" Price (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)