Project:Village Pump

From mediawiki.org

Since Action API is not the only API of MediaWiki. GZWDer (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Reply

@GZWDer: That seems reasonable, though we of course have api.wikimedia.org as the main user-facing pages nowadays. I think this is something the MediaWiki Interfaces team owns, however, so I would want their opinion first. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Bump to prevent archival. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

I would not call the API Portal (api.wikimedia.org) our main user-facing pages. Technically, the portal was never "officially" launched, it lags behind MediaWiki in terms of adoption/readership, and many of the docs pages presented on it are not updated very regularly. The "Core REST API" endpoints are also tightly coupled with a specific implementation that we're likely going to retire. There are other reasons that I won't get into here, but I would avoid putting too much weight on it being a preferred source of truth.

That being said, we are investing in improving our API experiences this year, which includes focusing on docs quality and consolidation. We will revisit the future of the API Portal and how it fits with other docs solutions later this year. I will share more specific plans and timelines once we have them! HCoplin-WMF (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Pinging MWI product manager HCoplin-WMF per Jdforrester's comment above ‍—‍a smart kitten _[meow] 09:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

Bump. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Note that this move would require a sysadmin due to the translatable page containing more than 500 bits. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

(Restored. Would be great to get an answer on this.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have re-flagged this discussion for PM User:HCoplin-WMF and other WMF colleagues, but just FYI Halley is currently out of the office so there may still be some delay in reply; maybe someone else from MWI team can reply. TBurmeister (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I support moving it. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Should this discussion be moved to Phabricator; both so that it can be specifically tagged for the MW Interfaces team's attention, and also given that - in any event - a maintenance script run would be needed to move this page (per Pppery)? Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten _[meow] 17:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

@A smart kitten: I don't think forking the conversation to Phab is necessary. I'll ping the team again about this. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Anything happening here? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I think I would support moving it. One alternate option would be to instead redirect it to API, which currently serves as a landing page that attempts to direct people to the various MediaWiki-related APIs including API:Action API. api.wikimedia.org has a similar, though somewhat broader scope and I don't think should be considered as relevant for the decision about API:Main_page specifically. Just FYI, the Wikimedia Technical Documentation Team is currently in the research/discovery phase of work to improve the discoverability of all these different collections of API docs; this will likely involve some future changes to API and related pages that seek to help people navigate to the landing pages for a specific API. TBurmeister (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, I realize my comment was a bit unclear. I think the Action API main page should clearly reflect that API's identity and not pretend to be the only API for MediaWiki. I think API:Action_API achieves that best as a page title (and I note it is already redirecting to API:Main_page). My comment was about what we could do with API:Main_page if we agree that it should not serve as the landing page for only the Action API.

One other note: there are some external dependencies that my team maintains and would need to update if the URL for the Action API landing page changes from API:Main_page to API:Action_API; the most important one I can identify right now is the URL we use in https://developer.wikimedia.org/use-content/content/ would need to change (this is not a big deal, just noting it here so we don't lose track of it). TBurmeister (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

This suggestion resonates with me too, @TBurmeister (WMF). It makes sense that API:Main_page would reference the generic API overview (although that page could also use some clean up love), with API:Action_API reflecting appropriate name space and scoping for the Action API specifically. Rerouting the main page would likely help people discover other flavors of APIs (eg: REST APIs) instead of thinking that the Action API is the only option. HCoplin-WMF (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I am very much in support of this transition and really appreciate you flagging it :) This proposal is aligned with where we are heading with Wikimedia APIs, including making the APIs more approachable by investing in improving REST coverage. Based on the API listening tour and developer satisfaction survey conducted last fiscal year, we have a lot of work ahead of us to improve the discoverability and understanding of the different APIs that we already offer. Putting them onto a more even playing field for the MediaWiki docs hierarchy would be a great starting point. It also frankly just matches the established pattern for the API namespace better. HCoplin-WMF (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have filed the script run request at T402800: Request to move translatable page: mw:API:Main_page for the initial move; the decision of what to do with the to-be redirect is not resolved, but doesn't need to block this. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

... and this has been done by @Ammarpad, thank you! Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Excellent! Thank you @Jdforrester (WMF) and @Ammarpad <3 Thanks again to @GZWDer for raising this in the first place, too :) HCoplin-WMF (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Currently, the page translation target language configuration on mediawiki.org were inherited from the "language converter page translation model".

However, this actually created several problems including the broken page transclutions with malfunctioned language converter tags exposed and using the workaround of Template:Conversion-zh, Template:LC zh. More breakages could be found on phab:T328838.

I would like to propose to use the "translatewiki.net page translation model"/"Miraheze Meta page translation model" instead on mediawiki.org after the related proposal had been discussed, supported and approved and changes had been done on Wikifunctions.

Below are examples of the proposed translation model.

• https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Template%3AMain+page&action=page&language=zh-hans&filter=
• https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Template%3AMain+page&action=page&language=zh-hant&filter=
• https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Template%3AMain+page&action=page&language=zh-hk&filter=
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Project%3AAbout&action=page&language=zh-hans&filter=
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Project%3AAbout&action=page&language=zh-hant&filter=
• https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Project%3AAbout&action=page&language=zh-hk&filter=
• https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Miraheze+Meta&action=page&language=zh-hans&filter=
• https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Miraheze+Meta&action=page&language=zh-hant&filter=
• https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Translate?group=page-Miraheze+Meta&action=page&language=zh-hk&filter=

More briefly for the zh part: The old configuration can only translate into zh while the new configuration can translate into zh-hans (for zh-Hans-CN, zh-Hans-MY, zh-Hans-SG), zh-hant (for zh-Hant-TW) and zh-hk (for zh-Hant-HK, zh-Hant-MO).

Note: "translatewiki.net page translation model"/"Miraheze Meta page translation model" refer to the same translation model.

-- Winston Sung (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Pinging @Aaron Liu @Anterdc99 @AromaTake @Cookai1205 @Diskdance @Lakejason0 @LowensteinYang @MilkyDefer @SolidBlock @Stang @Xiplus @魔琴 -- Winston Sung (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I've added my comments on the associated Phabricator task you linked, which is basically about doing the same thing on every multilingual wiki. TL;DR: I'm opposed because as it currently stands, this proposal would quadruple the work of translators. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'd say rather than doing this, we sort of finding a way to actually implement the NoteTA (manual conversion RULES, so not quadrupling the work but actively using the LC model) for content page. -- Lakejason0 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)(edited at 17:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC))Reply

Without using /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hk, we have to pass the language tag every time using message bundle messages.

-- Wrapping all of them under /zh using {{LC zh|, without using /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hk
tmb.new(mb_page_title,lang_tag):t(message_key):params(lang_tag):plain()

-- Using separated /zh-hans, /zh-hant, /zh-hk, we no longer need to pass the language tag :params( lang_tag ) every time
tmb.new(mb_page_title,lang_tag):t(message_key):plain()

With this change, every Lua module using translation bundles can be simplified:

- :t( message_key ):params( lang_tag ):plain()
+ :t( message_key ):plain()

Without this change, every Lua module using translation bundles need to:

- :t( message_key ):plain()
+ :t( message_key ):params( lang_tag ):plain()

-- Winston Sung (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

This is a problem, but more one for something like T196501 or something else that allows for fetching the current page variant under Lua. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Even if T196501 is solved, you still have no way to either get the requested language tag or pass the lang_tag parameter because we are currently using 1ドル instead of {{{lang|}}}, which make the message bundle messages to be something different like {{{lang|1ドル}}}. -- Winston Sung (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't think I understand. As long as lang is set to the needed value somewhere, it should work if we can get all the parent frames, even if it is input by the parser. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

There might be some misunderstandings.

You can only get "template arguments" like {{{1|}}} after T196501 being solved so we no longer need to write {{LC zh|lang = {{{lang|}}}|

However, "system message arguments"/"interface message arguments" like 1ドル are never something can be get from frame:getParent().args without either creating new methods to the frame object or still writing {{LC zh|lang = 1ドル| in Wikitext.

:t(message_key):params(lang_tag) use the "system message argument API" instead of "template argument API".

-- Winston Sung (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Future timestamp to prevent automatic archive to unresolved discusstion topic. -- Winston Sung (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-41097-7 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done --Clump (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-41678-8 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• King Of Waagaa (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• Jahleel K. is back (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --Như Gây Mê (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done by Tanbiruzzaman. --Clump (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-42818-7 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Creating out of scope pages/redirects. XReport --Codename Noreste (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done by Hide on Rosé --Clump (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

They're back. Codename Noreste (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Made permanent. --Clump (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-42868-3 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --Leonidlednev (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done --Clump (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-43643-8 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --MathXplore (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes Done --Clump (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-43279-3 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --人间百态 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Blocked by the AF. --Clump (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Given the existence of Category:Templates, the less logically named Category:Template should either be deleted (and the title watched by interested parties — note that it has many translations) or soft-redirected to the plural title. I have dcljr (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Agreed. I've marked for deletion Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Several pages here refer to "document root" or "DOCUMENT_ROOT", but there doesn't seem to be a good link target where that concept is discussed. Does anyone have a recommendation for this? - dcljr (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Dcljr DocumentRoot is the main directory on your web server from which the web server will serve files when you visit your webserver. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes. I'm saying our articles that mention it need to link to a simple explanation here on this wiki. You're not suggesting that every instance of that term be linked to an external webpage, are you? - dcljr (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Dcljr: It's a pretty fundamental Web tech concept, akin to "Web server" or "browser". It's not really our place to try to define it. I think trying to document the bits of the world for which we're not responsible is a bad idea. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

So, this means you are indeed saying we should link to an external page every time the term is used? - dcljr (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

If a Wikipedia article existed about it everyone would link to it without a second thought and that's an "external" page too, so I don't see what's the big deal. If anything we'd only have to remain consistent with the page we link to, *if* it is necessary to link to a given page at all. Tactica (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

The "big deal" is just that I couldn't tell what TheDJ's position on this actually was (link off-wiki or don't link at all). As you have seemed to imply that not linking to an explanation at all is a viable option, I will just point out that not everyone coming to a page like Manual:$wgLogos, for example, will know what DOCUMENT_ROOT is, or where it might be found. (It may be a general term, not a MediaWiki specific one, but it is a pretty arcane one compared to, say, "web server".) Closest thing we seem to have to the kind of thing I'm looking for is at Manual:Installing MediaWiki#Upload files to your web server, but that explanation is kind of "buried" in the text, plus it's way more information than most of the uses of the term elsewhere in our documentation actually require. (Somewhat ironically, that section actually links the more common term "web server", in exactly the way I'm suggesting we should be doing with "document root" and "DOCUMENT_ROOT".) I posted here merely to see if there was some better target that I was overlooking. - dcljr (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

My opinion comes down to that it is not our job to document how webservers work. Linking to external pages seems fine to me, but honestly, people should have already learned this before ever trying to install MediaWiki. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

We don't need to "document how webservers work" [eye roll], just not leave regular folks in the dark when technical jargon is used on this wiki. You do realize, do you not, that some people install MediaWiki through things like cPanel on shared servers, which tends to hide a lot of the installation details from them — until they find one day that they actually need to know certain details to do things they want to do (like change the way a site logo is configured). In such cases, our documentation should not throw up unnecessary barriers to understanding. Anyway, thank you for clarifying your position (even if I do end up disregarding it). I think we're done here. - dcljr (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I don't think we need to define or link it, but I think it should be more consistently referred to as "document root" and not "DOCUMENT_ROOT" or "docroot" or any of the other variations. It's not a variable (although most web servers do have a variable for it) it's the name of a configuration concept. (Of course, I don't mean when a particular web server config is being talked about.) Sam Wilson 23:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

• ~2025-47132-5 (talk • local contribs • global contribs • logs • rights • global account ) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 07:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Blocked. Hide on Rosé (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hi, there's a lot of out of scope IP comments here. Could we please protect it to semi-protection? Matrix (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Limited to autoconfirmed, and permanent this time given the ongoing spam/nonsense. --Clump (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

And I've buried all of the vandalism edits. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Retrieved from "https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Project:Village_Pump&oldid=7851182"

Category:

• MediaWiki.org website

Hidden category:

• Languages pages