MediaWiki was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 11, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept April 25, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Software: Computing C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wikipedia C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic 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, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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)

MediaWiki is a content management system (CMS). Anyone who feels otherwise with conviction, please explain how MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thanks. --Roger Chrisman 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a wiki software, maybe "Wiki Software" is a kind of CMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.149.88 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; a wiki is a type of CMS, as reflected on List of content management systems and Category:Content management systems. I'll note this in wiki and wiki software. -- Beland (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently has a large number of references consisting of interwiki or inter-namespace links. [This is a follow-up to this discussion on my user page.] It's generally a good idea to avoid both types of links in articles but this is clearly a special case because of the article's "meta" nature. All bona-fide references in the article should be to the usual third-party reliable sources. Most if not all of the interwiki or inter-namespace "references" should be converted to wikilinks in the article. If some are to be keep "footnote style", then a new footnotes group and section should be created to cleanly separate them from the references proper. Why should we avoid using references for these? A) because it gives the reader a false sense of reliability. They see the reference superscripts and assume the material is referenced by reliable sources when it isn't. B) it's just a clunky, inefficient way of using wiki-markup. It causes an extra, unneeded step to get the reader to information they might want. I propose all these be changed. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with A and I agree with B, but I don't have sufficient knowledge of en.wiki style guidelines to have an opinion. I note, however, that: 1) separating footnotes might be a good idea; 2) footnotes allow to specify the access date, which is sometimes very old; 3) converting everything to inline wikilinks could cause excessive linking compared to the standards for internal links, which can be quite harmful especially if clueless readers are sent to obscure project pages or technical manuals.

As for the root problem of acceptable content for this article, I agree that some parts are not very well justified, for instance the link you changed is about an en.wiki gadget[1] and I'm not sure if that specific gadget among hundreds is really so relevant, ideally we'd have more sources (perhaps some more have been published in the last few years). It's also possible that some of the information contained here would be best served if moved/merged to mw: pages: for instance, the history section is very lacking here and decent there, some parts are superseded by mw:Manual:MediaWiki architecture (which is also a third-party source as it was reviewed by the editors of the book of which it's a chapter). --Nemo 22:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what this means: "Only on Wikipedia, more than 1000 automated and semi-automated bots and other tools have been developed to assist in editing MediaWiki sites."

If you drop the first clause ("only on Wikipedia"), then the statement is clear (I don't know if it is true).

I guess it means that 1000 bots exist that work on Wikipedia and that some or all also work on standard MediaWiki installations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.75.121 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

114.79.53.43 posted this comment on 10 June 2013 (view all feedback).

I still don't know what is Media Wiki and what is the differences between Media Wiki and Wikipedia. The pictures needs more.

I'm not sure how this could be made more clear; the intro says that MediaWiki is the software that runs the Wikipedia project, among others. -- Beland (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content in VisualEditor to this article. These two articles both provide significant coverage about VisualEditor: The Economist, PC World. However, WP:NOTNEWS is generally applicable, in which the VisualEditor topic may not merit having its own article. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained in the encyclopedia in some form. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - in my opinion, extensions almost never merit separate articles. Few even get mention in this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For procedural reasons, starting a separate merger proposal during the AfD may confuse. I suggest participating at the AfD, and holding off/withdrawing this separate discussion. Widefox; talk 19:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]