[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Steven Walling changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.wikimedia. ||org/show_bug.cgi?id=60973 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Helder changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.wikimedia. ||org/show_bug.cgi?id=60264 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #45 from Chad H. --- (In reply to comment #44) > (In reply to comment #40) > > We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts > > with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. > > It's on Beta Labs, but not merged yet to production, so we can do that. I > was > just assuming the goal was "no numbering gap on individual wikis". > > So it looks like the lowest unused throughout the cluster is 118. > > Is 118/119 alright? If it's not used anywhere else, it sounds like a fine choice to me :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #44 from Matthew Flaschen --- (In reply to comment #40) > We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts > with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. It's on Beta Labs, but not merged yet to production, so we can do that. I was just assuming the goal was "no numbering gap on individual wikis". So it looks like the lowest unused throughout the cluster is 118. Is 118/119 alright? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #43 from Chad H. --- (In reply to comment #42) > (In reply to comment #41) > > (In reply to comment #40) > > > We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts > > > with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. > > > > Conflicts how? > > I'm assuming he means you'd generally want namespace numbers to be uniform > across wikis. It would be confusing if 110 referred to draft space on enwiki > but something else on another wiki. A number that's currently not used on any > WMF wiki should probably be used for this. It would be especially useful just > in case other wikis wants to implement their own draft namespace in the > future, > so they all have the same number. Yeah that. I know they don't have to be unique across all wikis, just unique to the wiki in question, but it makes life easier for everyone when it is :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #42 from Equazcion --- (In reply to comment #41) > (In reply to comment #40) > > We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts > > with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. > > Conflicts how? I'm assuming he means you'd generally want namespace numbers to be uniform across wikis. It would be confusing if 110 referred to draft space on enwiki but something else on another wiki. A number that's currently not used on any WMF wiki should probably be used for this. It would be especially useful just in case other wikis wants to implement their own draft namespace in the future, so they all have the same number. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #41 from MZMcBride --- (In reply to comment #40) > We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts > with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. Conflicts how? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #40 from Chad H. --- We probably shouldn't have used 110 as the namespace number. It conflicts with other namespaces in use on other WMF wikis. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #39 from Steven Walling --- FYI for all interested, we're testing the current namespace patch on Labs now. Try it out at: http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org Requirements: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #38 from Equazcion --- > (In reply to comment #35) > > Yes, we could wait for Steve to completely squirm out of his original > > position with corporate speak in order to preserve his pride, but I think > > it > > would be more time-efficient to simply move ahead now. > > Please stop trying to make this personal. It wasn't my intention to provoke a personal altercation, even if some of my comments could be interpreted that way. I'm merely saying out loud what many of us see but are unwilling to volunteer (probably for good reason, but I'm fine being it, having no ties or reputation to preserve). Individuals should be pointed out when they act in a way that contributes to the systemic problem that the community overwhelmingly feels is present and the Wikimedia Foundation denies. It's important that someone be willing to do that, or else there's little chance it'll ever change. (In reply to comment #37) > (In reply to comment #33) > > I added a couple of namespaces in the past and I wasn't held to this > > standard, which seems a bit much. > > Those weren't namespaces on English Wikipedia with custom hooks and changes > to > robot policy. Even though Meta is a user-facing project, Schema is not > intended to be used by most Meta users. > > Anyway, as far as I can tell, the requirements are done (categories should > not > be in the launch requirements). > > Please bear in mind part of the delay has been over Thanksgiving. My goal is > to get this out very soon, with testing on Beta (which should not cause a > delay). Thank you. So long as delays aren't caused by various unproposed and inappropriate extras, I'm personally fine with people taking their time. I was actually going to give the understandable Thanksgiving lull another day or two before asking questions again, but was contacted yesterday by another user, and figured it was as good a time as any. It's good to know the requirements are now finished and the configuration change that effectively creates the namespace can now be implemented. Please let us know if any further causes for delay materialize. Otherwise I'm excited to see this new namespace. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #37 from Matthew Flaschen --- (In reply to comment #33) > I added a couple of namespaces in the past and I wasn't held to this > standard, which seems a bit much. Those weren't namespaces on English Wikipedia with custom hooks and changes to robot policy. Even though Meta is a user-facing project, Schema is not intended to be used by most Meta users. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the requirements are done (categories should not be in the launch requirements). Please bear in mind part of the delay has been over Thanksgiving. My goal is to get this out very soon, with testing on Beta (which should not cause a delay). (In reply to comment #35) > Yes, we could wait for Steve to completely squirm out of his original > position with corporate speak in order to preserve his pride, but I think it > would be more time-efficient to simply move ahead now. Please stop trying to make this personal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #36 from Chad H. --- Anyone else remember the Table namespace? What have been the long term lasting implications of that little experiment? You know the best part about namespaces? We can totally undo them later if we find out it's a bad idea :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #35 from Equazcion --- (In reply to comment #34) > I'm okay with delaying some of the questions I brought up for the future, > but I > do think the requirements are necessary. > > To be fair Ori, namespaces I think you've added are things like Schema. These > were not requested by the community, and we had complete control over what we > thought was minimally necessary. They also didn't have the kind of > far-reaching > impact that a Draft namespace on our largest project does. I'm not saying we > need to wait months or something, but I am saying we should make sure the > absolute basics are agreed on and tested. Yes, we could wait for Steve to completely squirm out of his original position with corporate speak in order to preserve his pride, but I think it would be more time-efficient to simply move ahead now. I'm just saying this for the record. If anyone has some non-vague reason to say any of this is still necessary let's hear it clearly and specifically. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #34 from Steven Walling --- (In reply to comment #33) > (In reply to comment #32) > > The first phase of this will be just the namespace. The launch requirements > > are being hashed out at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace . If > > you see any missing questions that should be resolved pre-launch, add them. > > I added a couple of namespaces in the past and I wasn't held to this > standard, > which seems a bit much. (It's fine as a list of desiderata, but not as a list > of merge blockers.) If MZMcBride (as patch submitter) is not persuaded that > waiting is sensible, we should just merge the patch and get on with it. The > risk of having to do extra work to migrate content is dwarfed by the > inevitability of this discussion metastasizing into a contest of legitimacy > and > power -- a process that is already well underway, it seems. If it drags on > much > longer, it will annihilate any possibility of fruitful collaboration in this > sphere. My vote is therefore to merge (with noted reluctance, if you like) > and > to move on. I'm okay with delaying some of the questions I brought up for the future, but I do think the requirements are necessary. To be fair Ori, namespaces I think you've added are things like Schema. These were not requested by the community, and we had complete control over what we thought was minimally necessary. They also didn't have the kind of far-reaching impact that a Draft namespace on our largest project does. I'm not saying we need to wait months or something, but I am saying we should make sure the absolute basics are agreed on and tested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Ori Livneh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||o...@wikimedia.org --- Comment #33 from Ori Livneh --- (In reply to comment #32) > The first phase of this will be just the namespace. The launch requirements > are being hashed out at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace . If > you see any missing questions that should be resolved pre-launch, add them. I added a couple of namespaces in the past and I wasn't held to this standard, which seems a bit much. (It's fine as a list of desiderata, but not as a list of merge blockers.) If MZMcBride (as patch submitter) is not persuaded that waiting is sensible, we should just merge the patch and get on with it. The risk of having to do extra work to migrate content is dwarfed by the inevitability of this discussion metastasizing into a contest of legitimacy and power -- a process that is already well underway, it seems. If it drags on much longer, it will annihilate any possibility of fruitful collaboration in this sphere. My vote is therefore to merge (with noted reluctance, if you like) and to move on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #32 from Matthew Flaschen --- The first phase of this will be just the namespace. The launch requirements are being hashed out at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace . If you see any missing questions that should be resolved pre-launch, add them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 --- Comment #31 from Nemo --- This bug got hopelessly confusing with all these discussions about closures and whatnot, which should continue at bug 57569. If the outcome of this discussion is to work on this in core, this bug should be duplicated to bug 27311, which has clearer requirements, and other stuff added to its dependencies (as in, the "/managing" part of the summary, which was never asked so far; that can be blocked on bug 27311). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Matthew Flaschen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia. |mflasc...@wikimedia.org |org | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 57315] New feature for creating/managing new pages
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Matthew Flaschen changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|New extension for |New feature for |creating/managing new pages |creating/managing new pages --- Comment #30 from Matthew Flaschen --- Changing the title to reflect that we're going to look closer at where to put stuff, and a core feature flag is one possibility. It might allow easier and tighter integration/replacement of certain features (search pages, redlinks, etc), even though hooks remain an option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
