Last modified: 2006-11-27 12:33:27 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 7778 - [] - configuration changes
[] - configuration changes
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
All All
: Normal normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: shell
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-11-01 13:34 UTC by Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Modified: 2006-11-27 12:33 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-01 13:34:10 UTC
There are a few configuration changes requested at that require a
developer's input.  Please see for full

The changes are as follows:
1) We need a new namespace called 'Extension'
2) The 'Project' namespace should be renamed to 'Site'
3) The namespaces searched by default should be: Main, Help, Manual, Extension.
4) Special:Import needs to be enabled so that we can move (transwiki?) content
from meta.  Currently, visiting that page gives the message "No transwiki import
sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled."

Also, I don't know if it is possible/desirable to modify the 'namespaces
searched by default' option for existing users, but if so that seems like a
sensible idea (or at least for users who have not made their own customisations...)
Comment 1 Rotem Liss 2006-11-01 15:11:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Also, I don't know if it is possible/desirable to modify the 'namespaces
> searched by default' option for existing users, but if so that seems like a
> sensible idea (or at least for users who have not made their own

It's impossible (well, unless you manually hack the DB...).
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2006-11-01 20:39:59 UTC
1) Could do.

2) Disagree, will not do.

3) Could do.

4) Could do; anywhere other than meta?
Comment 3 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-01 23:42:08 UTC
There are good reasons for renaming project to site.  This issue was raised two
and half months ago and after some discussion was announced to the wiki on the
14th October, with two weeks where any further discussion could be held and
objections raised.   Can you please let me know what your objections are, and
why you didn't raise them on-wiki during this time?

Re: 4 - as far as I know there is nowhere else we need to transwiki from at the
moment.  The main reason for the transwiki is to transfer MediaWiki related
information (including page histories, etc.) from meta.  I'm assuming that if we
need to add further transwiki sources in the future it won't be a problem.
Comment 4 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-01 23:42:56 UTC
Oh - another thing.  If we are transwikying, do we need a special transwiki
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2006-11-02 03:09:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> 2) Disagree, will not do.

I assume the problem with "Project" is that people will be inclined to put all
their projects there.  That's what it says, after all, and there are no shortage
MediaWiki-related projects, although those would sometimes also qualify as
extensions.  Presumably the Project namespace there is supposed to be used for
talking about issues only, not stuff related to
MediaWiki.  That's what the main namespace is for, I assume.  So maybe
"" would be a good name, if . is allowed in namespace names.
Comment 6 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-02 04:21:27 UTC
The main problem is that 'Project' is ambiguous.  For people working on
developing the site Project="", however for most visitors to the
site, Project="MediaWiki software", or possibly "Wikimedia Foundation". As you
say, it may also be regarded as a namespace to deal with whatever projects are
currently on-going (whether related to site management or not).

'Site' was the best suggestion on the wiki, but I am open to alternatives,
providing they remove the ambiguity. is clearer, but perhaps is
confusing given that there is also a MediaWiki namespace (and as you say, the
dot may cause problems).
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2006-11-02 08:07:26 UTC
Project is the canonical name of the namespace; would be silly to give it a *third* name!
I don't know where "on wiki" you mean; you should of course be aware that
is a documentation site, not really a place of discussion.
Comment 8 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-02 15:28:41 UTC
I know Project is the canonical name, on it is the only name (so I
don't know what you mean by a *third* name).  We are requesting an alternative
name to be used instead of project, and are aware that Project: will still be
usable as an alternative.

On wiki (in this case) means Project:Current_issues (as mentioned in my original
description), although announcements were made elsewhere on the site as well.

I am of course _very_ aware that is a documentation site (I
believe, though I may be wrong, that I have made more edits on that site than
anyone else...) however discussion _about_ the wiki itself is  carried out
on-wiki as it should be.  The two main places being Project:Forum (for day to
day stuff) and Project:Current_issues (for larger long-term issues).
Comment 9 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-12 21:42:11 UTC
Any news on this?
Comment 10 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-16 03:42:16 UTC
Thanks for enabling the transwiki from meta.  Any news on the other 3 issues? 
If point 2 is something that you think needs further discussion would it be
possible for 1 and 3 to be fixed in the interim?
Comment 11 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-27 09:38:44 UTC
Thanks Tim for fixing points 1 and 3.

I am concerned that this bug has been closed without a resolution to issue 2. 
Some response to the above comments would be appreciated.
Comment 12 Rob Church 2006-11-27 11:41:17 UTC
Discussion on changing something like the meta namespace ought to take place
further on the site itself; as we've done some of that, and it's been rejected,
it could be that

* more discussion is needed
* it's not going to happen and there's a good reason to veto it
Comment 13 Mark Clements (HappyDog) 2006-11-27 12:33:27 UTC
OK - I'm happy to conduct more discussion on the wiki if that is required. 
However if this is not going to happen even if there is a consensus that it
should, then I would like to know that now (plus reasons), rather than in a
months time after agreement has been reached.  

Can someone confirm that this change (whether to 'site' or a better equivalent)
would be allowed if it was shown that the community is behind it?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.