Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:18 UTC
If we can have prominent "edit this page" links, why not have prominent "report bug" links, especially when we are using our projects to test software?
We're not using our projects to test software, we're writing software for the projects.
(In reply to comment #1) > We're not using our projects to test software, we're writing software for the projects. The software is just as important a part of the projects as the content.
(In reply to comment #1) > We're not using our projects to test software, we're writing software for the projects. If we're not using our projects to test software, why are we running them on "alpha" software that we advise others not to use?
For the thousandth time, the software is written specifically to run the Wikimedia sites. That is its purpose in life. Additionally, we make it available for third parties to use. There are version numbers slapped on to label the releases to third parties.
Anyway, regarding adding a bug link: that can be done on any wiki by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar appropriately, if the people on that wiki want to have such a link.
(In reply to comment #5) > For the thousandth time, the software is written specifically to run the Wikimedia > sites. That is its purpose in life. > > Additionally, we make it available for third parties to use. There are version numbers > slapped on to label the releases to third parties. > <CIA-12> vibber * phase3/includes/DefaultSettings.php: Change version number from '1.6alpha' to '1.6devel' so know-it-alls who bitch about how we're running alpha software can shut the fuck up ;)
*Snicker*
(In reply to comment #5) > For the thousandth time, the software is written specifically to run the Wikimedia sites. That is its purpose in life. This just validates my comments (2, 3): The software is just as important a part of the projects as the content. (In reply to comment #6) > Anyway, regarding adding a bug link: that can be done on any wiki by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar appropriately, if the people on that wiki want to have such a link. That's why this is filed under "Wikimedia web sites", not "MediaWiki".
You want to talk to the community and sysops on whichever wiki(s) you want to add such a link. They can do this without the intervention of the developer team.
All the wikis...but it doesn't look like anyone here agrees!
The point is, no one here has to agree because it's not our decision. How to best expose the technical side of a bug report system to users is something that the community on the wiki would be more approriate to decide. Eg currently there are links to bugzilla on the Village Pump (technical) on en.wikipedia; some things will then get reported directly into bugzilla while others will get discussed there until someone moves it over. On non-English wikis, exposing a Bugzilla link directly might be relatively unfriendly, but having it as a link on a first-level local page which explains what it's about and when issues should go here is very appropriate.
(In reply to comment #12) > [snip] > On non-English wikis, exposing a Bugzilla link directly might be relatively unfriendly, but having it as a link on a first-level local page which explains what it's about and when issues should go here is very appropriate. Are all our development work and tools in English (as far as I know, yes)? Why should they be, when all our other projects are multilingual?
(In reply to comment #13) > Are all our development work and tools in English (as > far as I know, yes)? Why should they be, when all our > other projects are multilingual? Because they are in whatever language most developers speak; this turns out to be English, although I believe German would come second. Unlike the projects themselves, the goal of MediaWiki is not to make its development open to all - the goal is to facilitate its use by Wikimedia projects. Opening the development tools up to other languages *might* help in that goal, but since the core developers would then not understand them [and each other?], it might also hinder it. I think the mistake you are making is considering the software to be *part of* "the projects", when in reality it exists outside of them, as a tool to facilitate them. It's true that it's a very *important* tool, and the success of the projects is closely bound to its quality and development; but that doesn't mean it must necessarily be bound by the same rules and considerations, only that it must be "good" and responsive to the needs of its users.
The problem with having translated explanations on all the wikis is the duplication - see bug 3916 and bug 3917.
How is it duplicating to have different language versions of the same explanation on different projects? English explanation != French explanation in terms of language or grammar, hence the texts differ, hence the information is not the same - ergo, it is not duplication.
(In reply to comment #16) > How is it duplicating to have different language versions of the sameexplanation on different projects? English explanation != French explanation interms of language or grammar, hence the texts differ, hence the information isnot the same - ergo, it is not duplication. I meant, for example, that having the same explanation on the French Wikipedia and the French Wiktionary is duplication.
Unavoidable. You've completely skipped past the point you were trying to make filing this request. Individual wikis can add, at the consensus of their communities, links to whatever the hell they like on their sidebars. It's not a development issue and never was.
