Last modified: 2014-01-17 13:51:34 UTC
Rename Special:Version to Special:About, keeping the alias. Per Krinkle in bug 40641 comment 16, the current name "Version" doesn't cover the contents (copyright, credits, authors, licensing, configuration, plugins, hooks, ..)
Can't find the comment I had before. But I'm leaning towards Special:PoweredBy rather than Special:About. "About" seems to generic, I'd expect it to be more about the site itself than the software.
But even your browser probably has a help:about page. Almost every software product has a Help -> About menu item. MediaWiki has no Help menu, so we have to resort to special pages. While it might sound generic, I'm hard-pressed to find out any other context it might be used in. We already have action=info. (I think you mentioned it before at bug 40641 comment 18.)
Actually, I don't see anything really wrong with "Version". (In reply to comment #1) > Can't find the comment I had before. But I'm leaning towards Special:PoweredBy > rather than Special:About. "Powered by" is hard to translate, I don't like it (my opinion). > "About" seems to generic, I'd expect it to be more > about the site itself than the software. +1 (In reply to comment #2) > But even your browser probably has a help:about page. Almost every software > product has a Help -> About menu item. MediaWiki has no Help menu, so we have > to resort to special pages. That's often called "Info"/"Information". > While it might sound generic, I'm hard-pressed to find out any other context it > might be used in. We already have action=info. So what? We also have Project:About linked from the footer, for that matter.
Adding an alias may not hurt, but I'm not sure 'about' would really be that helpful - the vague terminology indicates it is about the site, not the software. 'PowerdBy' is also rather awkward and perhaps less intuitive, as it doesn't really indicate what it is at all unless one makes the connection with the 'powered by' icon button generally in the bottom corner. But whatever the case, suddenly renaming a widely used and accepted special page would be rather unwise without a demonstrated need, and even then it would not be unless it were to something that is an unambiguously marked improvement. Is there any special need for this?
(In reply to comment #3) > Actually, I don't see anything really wrong with "Version". > > (In reply to comment #1) > > Can't find the comment I had before. But I'm leaning towards Special:PoweredBy > > rather than Special:About. > > "Powered by" is hard to translate, I don't like it (my opinion). > Other ones I thought about before PoweredBy were Special:AboutMediaWiki or Special:SoftwareAbout but they felt even uglier. I couldn't get a word that conveys "The software running the current site" into my head besides PoweredBy.
(In reply to comment #3) > > "About" seems to generic, I'd expect it to be more > > about the site itself than the software. > > +1 > So what? We also have Project:About linked from the footer, for that matter. Yes, there is Project:About, which is about the website - or the project - you're on, and there would be Special:About, which would be technical data about the software the project is running. Many of the special pages already contain purely technical - or even internal - data not really intended for readers, but only tech-savvy editors, e.g. Special:MostLinked, Special:UnwatchedPages, Special:MostRevisions... I think there is a clear distiction between them and regular pages. Special:Info would be fine, too, but IMO it could be confused with action=info.
(In reply to comment #4) > But whatever the case, suddenly renaming a widely used and accepted special > page would be rather unwise without a demonstrated need, and even then it would > not be unless it were to something that is an unambiguously marked improvement. The alias (redirect) from the old name should be kept, of course. Nothing would really change for end-users, other than the name being clearer. Nothing says "we don't know what we're doing" like having to direct somebody to Special:Version so he can check if he has an extension installed ;)
(I suppose I should have used "they" instead of "he" in the last sentence.)
(In reply to comment #4) > Is there any special need for this? Not really. Some people suddenly feel that we're accumulating too much stuff in this page which is not associated to the word "version", like entry URLs, credits etc. The same applies for "Powered by" and other proposals, on the other hand. (In reply to comment #7) > Nothing says "we don't know what we're doing" like having to direct somebody to > Special:Version so he can check if he has an extension installed ;) Oh really, and why? «I'm running a modified [version of] MediaWiki, with the following extensions installed: ...» sounds reasonable.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > "About" seems to generic, I'd expect it to be more > > > about the site itself than the software. > > > > +1 > > > So what? We also have Project:About linked from the footer, for that matter. > > Yes, there is Project:About, which is about the website - or the project - > you're on, and there would be Special:About, which would be technical data > about the software the project is running. > > Many of the special pages already contain purely technical - or even internal - > data not really intended for readers, but only tech-savvy editors, e.g. > Special:MostLinked, Special:UnwatchedPages, Special:MostRevisions... I think > there is a clear distiction between them and regular pages. > > Special:Info would be fine, too, but IMO it could be confused with action=info. The issue is we're swiping a generic name to point to meta information about MediaWiki instead of about the site's content. MostLinked, UnwatchedPages, MostRevisions, Recentchanges, etc... all of these other generic special pages are about the site and it's content not meta information on MediaWiki. Version was generic. But what else is version going to be about than the software. The word itself was very meta so it didn't have the issue. But "About". That just screams "About the wiki" "About the site"... That name just screams "I wrote an extension that presents the site's about inside of a special page" like someone might write a Special:Contact extension.
-1 Keep it as Special:Version No good rationale for the renaming, but there are several reasons for not doing it.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > Many of the special pages already contain purely technical - or even internal - > > data not really intended for readers, but only tech-savvy editors, e.g. > > Special:MostLinked, Special:UnwatchedPages, Special:MostRevisions... I think > > there is a clear distiction between them and regular pages. > > MostLinked, UnwatchedPages, MostRevisions, Recentchanges, etc... all of these > other generic special pages are about the site and it's content not meta > information on MediaWiki. > +1 > Version was generic. But what else is version going to be about than the > software. The word itself was very meta so it didn't have the issue. > > But "About". That just screams "About the wiki" "About the site"... That name > just screams "I wrote an extension that presents the site's about inside of a > special page" like someone might write a Special:Contact extension. I always liked the Dutch translation of Special:Version: Speciaal:Softwareversie ("Software version"). What about Special:SofwareInfo. (In reply to comment #11) > Keep it as Special:Version No good rationale for the renaming, but there are > several reasons for not doing it. This comment is useless without details. There are various comments here, on other bugs and on the mailing list that provide rationale for renaming, denying that with no details is just foolish.
> What about Special:SofwareInfo. Doesn't sound bad, but this is going to be really long in some locales. In Polish, this would translate as "Specjalna:Informacje o oprogramowaniu". (Not that it would be a blocker, but a personal pet peeve of mine.) Maybe we could use Special:Software?
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Keep it as Special:Version No good rationale for the renaming, but there are > > several reasons for not doing it. > > This comment is useless without details. There are various comments here, on > other bugs and on the mailing list that provide rationale for renaming, denying > that with no details is just foolish. None of the rationales here well explain why this would be a needed change, though the wording is a little silly, nor is the practical significance addressed of either leaving it the same or changing it. What would be the justification for the inconsistency introduced between what sysadmins expect and encounter, especially if none of the alternatives suggested are without pitfalls of their own? What details are there to give? Call the thing what you will, Special:Version, Special:About, Special:SoftwareInfo, Special:Platform, what have you; it is the why it needs changing that is not compelling. I don't think that's foolish.
Indeed, this debate might be a bit absurd. Perhaps it would be more useful to come up with an explanation to add to the empty [[MediaWiki:Version-summary]] shown on top of the page? The absence of any explanation for such a complex page might be a worse offender.
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > Keep it as Special:Version No good rationale for the renaming, but there are > > > several reasons for not doing it. > > > > This comment is useless without details. There are various comments here, on > > other bugs and on the mailing list that provide rationale for renaming, denying > > that with no details is just foolish. > > None of the rationales here well explain why this would be a needed change, > though the wording is a little silly, nor is the practical significance > addressed of either leaving it the same or changing it. What would be the > justification for the inconsistency introduced between what sysadmins expect > and encounter, especially if none of the alternatives suggested are without > pitfalls of their own? > > What details are there to give? Call the thing what you will, Special:Version, > Special:About, Special:SoftwareInfo, Special:Platform, what have you; it is the > why it needs changing that is not compelling. > > I don't think that's foolish. I concur with everything said here. There's been no compelling reason given to merit the change--and just a bunch of bikeshedding over names. I'd highly suggest WONTFIXing this. (In reply to comment #15) > Indeed, this debate might be a bit absurd. Perhaps it would be more useful to > come up with an explanation to add to the empty [[MediaWiki:Version-summary]] > shown on top of the page? The absence of any explanation for such a complex > page might be a worse offender. This is not a bad idea at all.
The rationale is that "Version" does not cover the load. It contains: * Copyright * Credits * Authors * Descriptions * List of hooks and callbacks * Entry point configuration * MediaWiki version * MediaWIki extensions versions
man I thought more alias = more inconvenience. It saves people the trouble of remembering the exact name of a page. I disagree that adding a alias needs a rationale.
(In reply to comment #18) > man I thought more alias = more inconvenience. It saves people the trouble of > remembering the exact name of a page. > > I disagree that adding a alias needs a rationale. More convenience*
Related URL: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/62614 (Gerrit Change Ie7775e0a094e006fc559025942f25b18ed13b280)
There's apparently a patch at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/107840/ I'd point out that lots of programs output copyright info with version info. I don't really see this as something that needs to be changed.
I renamed all the 'Special:Version' TO 'Special:Software' but still it does not work when I test it. Would someone please help me?
