The justification for getting rid of the link to the Download page under "Get MediaWiki" is that it's already linked from Main Page, which is a point that also covers half the side bar (e.g. the user manual, the communications page, etc.).
This page is the main page newbies on the wiki will want to go after landing on a neat feature they've seen and want to try out, e.g. Extension:DiscussionTools or Extension:VisualEditor. I think it merits being retained on every page.
It also has the most pageviews by a significant margin, though I'm not sure why that is.
Looking at the original thread, I see @AKlapper (WMF) had originally suggested:
Rename "Get MediaWiki" to "Install MediaWiki" and link to Manual:Installing MediaWiki instead which covers all steps (including downloading and additional extensions).
and the entry was removed entirely in the later proposal (as copied to this project page).
I'm uncertain about all 3 options, namely:
IMHO remove entirely as this activity is prominently covered on the front page. I don't think I'd often end up on some random page and after reading it think "Oh, and now I really want to get/install MediaWiki!" which would justify having this always exposed...
Can you give some data to support your implicit supposition that people who come to the wiki without full plans / experience generally start from the Main Page? This feels a very unlikely outcome; I understood that most of our incoming traffic is from search engines.
@Jdforrester (WMF) That is not my implicit supposition. Every page is page 1. People can reach the main starting page with the most important links to start with with one click in the side bar. If I get you correctly, do you imply that we should have all items which are currently on the main page also duplicated in the side bar?
No. I'm saying that the most important link on the entire wiki is "Get MediaWiki", not the front page that people will generally ignore by default as it's the place websites put their marketing. Obviously I do not think we should have "all" items, but we should have the more important ones ahead of the ones that are less so.
While I don't think that most people need to download and install MediaWiki every time they visit this website...
I think this is a bit sad, and diminishes a key communication channel.
The justification is that it appears on Communication which is already in the list, but it's the 22nd primary source linked on that page (being generous and counting all of the IRC channels linked as just one).
That's a good point. Those posts definitely are more outsider-oriented (versus many of the phab:phame microblogs). I guess the main other discovery mechanism for that blog is via the @wikimediatech twitter account?
If it updated more frequently I'd easily agree with keeping it in the Sidebar. But there was 87 days between the latest and previous post. So I'm not sure.
If something is announced as “Tech Blog” on major portal, I am expecting the one and only communication channel when I begin to experience this world.
However, that link is one of manifold News, mailing lists, chats, announcements, blogs, IRC, and whatever. And it seems not to be the most recent state.
Then the sidebar link needs to go for a survey page of various communication channels for people with different focus.
If something is announced as “Tech Blog” on major portal, I am expecting the one and only communication channel when I begin to experience this world.
Yup, or at least an important one.
However, that link is one of manifold News, mailing lists, chats, announcements, blogs, IRC, and whatever. And it seems not to be the most recent state.
You mean the Communications link? Yes, but that's a different link to the Tech blog one we're talking about. Or are you saying something else?
I want one communications link, and on that landing page I do expect guidance which channel will serve my needs with which content.
There are Q&A help desks for bidirectional communication, there are newsletters in a one-way mode, some are addressed to MW developers, some are heading for people maintaining a MW installation, some are informing WMF networking and server people, some are for maintaining mediawiki.org content. Some may be a forum, a mailing list, a blog, an IRC, a bug report entry.
I want Tech Blog embedded in this overall picture and when exploring all these channels I want a brief explanation which area is covered, and which audience is addressed.
Tech Blog is mentioned there today, and got such a brief description. Among 28 channels, and this is fine and sufficient.
"Translate content" links to Special:LanguageStats which is a very pretty but quite heavy page with no help. If we needed to link somewhere, I'd recommend pointing translators to https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:MediaWiki first.
Special:LanguageStats shows translatable content; translatewiki:Translating:MediaWiki is about translating software. They are not interchangeable. Project:Translation could be used instead of Special:LanguageStats, but it doesn’t seem to be maintained.
Special:LanguageStats shows translatable content; translatewiki:Translating:MediaWiki is about translating software. They are not interchangeable.
I know, but the current link is hugely low-value for newbies (which is for whom the sidebar is primarily aimed; regulars have watchlists and pages they visit by habit). On-wiki translation is significantly less valuable for our wider communities than interface translation, overall (one fix can serve tens of millions, not tens). If we're going to encourage translation blindly to all users, we should at least point them somewhere that uses them most effectively, on-boards them, and tells them why they should care.
Project:Translation could be used instead of Special:LanguageStats, but it doesn’t seem to be maintained.
It's certainly less server-crushing and user-hostile, and has scope to improve.
That outdated Project:Translation page should probably be merged & redirected to Translator hub?
Which could itself be a replacement link target for the sidebar?
Ah, that's a new page since 2019; yeah, that's a much better outcome. Shall we change the recommendation to have it point there?