No.
In this document, the phrase Phabricator is often used. Perhaps most of them are used as abbreviations for Wikimedia Phabricator. But Wikimedia Phabricator and m:Phabricator are different and it is difficult to distinct for the first-time readers. In addition, I guess this document explains mostly Wikimedia Phabricator rather than Phabricator , so it is inappropriate to name the document Phabricator. (It should be renamed.)
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how Wikimedia Phabricator and m:Phabricator are about different things. Please elaborate. It should not be renamed, as mediawiki.org is a Wikimedia website. Hence it is about technical stuff used by Wikimedia. mediawiki.org is not Wikipedia where an article about Phabricator would be about the general software, not about the instance of that software used by Wikimedia.
Hello AKlapper (WMF) !!!
Sorry, it is a mistake that I wrote
But Wikimedia Phabricator and m:Phabricator are different and it is difficult to distinct for the first-time readers.
I was going to write
But Wikimedia Phabricator and w:Phabricator are different and it is difficult to distinct for the first-time readers.
So, please read my claim again with the above corrections incorporated.
Thank you !!!
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not mediawiki.org. Hence that is intended and will not change.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit is not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrit_(software) either, plus dozens of other examples. If people don't understand the scope of a website, so it be.
Hello AKlapper (WMF) !!!
The gist of my opinion doesn't seem to be conveyed to you. So I will write my opinion changing expression.
My opinion is as follows.
It is a dialect using Phabricator as Wikimedia Phabricator. And in mediawiki.org such dialect should not be used.
Aside from your pros and cons, have you understood the point of my opinion ?
Thank you !!! --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I have understood the point of your opinion. And I do not agree with you, for reasons I already explained in this disussion.
Hello AKlapper (WMF) and Jdforrester (WMF) !!!
Do you mean that m:Phabricator is a document describing w:Phabricator and it does not describe about Wikimedia Phabricator at all ? If so, where is the document in https://www.mediawiki.org/ which describe about the role of Wikimedia Phabricator in MediaWiki development and maintenance work which I want to know ?
Thank you !!!
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, first question: No. Second question: See Phabricator (which is the page on which you are asking your question.)
There is software out there in this world. If it's relevant, it might have a Wikipedia article.
Some of this software is also used by Wikimedia. For that case, it might have an article on mediawiki.org or meta.wikimedia.org or wikitech.wikimedia.org (depending on scope within Wikimedia).
Hello AKlapper (WMF) !!!
I focus on activities on Japanese Wikipedia, so I have not noticed your response.
AKlapper (WMF) wrote that the question about the role of Wikimedia Phabricator should be written here, so I will write my question.
Before that, I briefly describe how I got here.
One of my main activities is translating articles from other languages into Japanese Wikipedia using content translation.
And I have made several bug reports on Talk:Content translation (because content translations often cause errors.)
I doubted that Talk: Content translation can be a WOP (write only page), as the response to the bug report was unpleasant.
Then, after a question and answer on Talk:Content translation, I learned about the existence of Wikimedia Phabricator.
Well, what I want to know is what is the role of Wikimedia Phabricator in the development and maintenance of MediaWiki.
More specifically, what is Wikimedia Phabricator's responsibility for content translation bug remedy?
I'm guessing from the information I've obtained so far:
I would like to ask whether the above assumptions are correct or not.
Thank you.
PS. I got a Wikimedia Phabricator account by mistake. Though I am interested in program development, unfortunately I only have basic knowledge of VB.
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@HaussmannSaintLazare See Phabricator/Help for the role of Wikimedia Phabricator in the development and maintenance of MediaWiki. It links to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Introduction-to-Phabricator-WikiCon-2016.pdf.
Extension:ContentTranslation has a section called "Issues" in the infobox.
I would not agree with your bullet point 4 and bullet point 5; see Bug management/Development prioritization. :)
Hello AKlapper (WMF) !!!
Thank you for answering my question in good faith.
I'm not suspicious that you've written you can't agree with 4.5, Because 1,2,3 of the other day's messages are speculations about facts, and 4,5 are not.
However, your sense is still that of a technician, unlike a general user like me.
MediaWiki is the infrastructure of the Wikipedia system including us users.
Users want infrastructure to be stable and functional.
I will write a parable from here.
The current state of MediaWiki content translation is like this;
When I was running on a newly opened highway, it suddenly collapsed and the car fell down.
In this state, it would be natural for the user to get angry if technicians start to create a new highway without solving the cause of accident.
Thank you !!!
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@HaussmannSaintLazare That parable does not sound like a good fit, as no cars fall down in Wikimedia software and as many many cars have no problems at all. :) If you run into specific (!) bugs with clear (!) steps to reproduce, feel free to follow How to report a bug. And if you are aware of any piece of software which is completely free of bugs and has unlimited developer (wo)manpower to always fix everything and beyond, please let me know. Thanks.
(This message is a Postscript of 10:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC). I will reply above message (when you wrote this ?) after.) By the way, do AKlapper (WMF) know that some account users were blocked due to using content translation in Japanese Wikipedia?
I think these blocks are related to the bad reputation of content translation among some Japanese Wikipedia users. The bad reputation of content translation is probably due to the lack of effort to keep track of each Wikipedia request before development. Alternatively, AKlapper (WMF) may not be involved in content translation at all. However, since you are involved in some form of development, you should be aware of what kind of results your products produce, and be careful about what kind of results will be hapten before starting development. I use content translation because I think that it is not a bad tool if it works properly. But because of the above circumstances, I am feeling a little scared to use it.
--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@HaussmannSaintLazare It could be helpful if you made less assumptions. If you got to https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/特別:個人設定mw-prefsection-betafeatures you can see that Content Translation is listed as a Beta Feature. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta for the meaning of "Beta": Beta software has bugs by definition, so your expectations surprise me. If you don't want to use beta software, then don't enable beta software. I already pointed out how you could report specific bugs if you want to help in a constructive way and allow others (whoever is interested in that) to potentially investigate bugs.
For questions about users on Japanese Wikipedia, you'll have to ask on Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks!
...and all this now has nothing to do with Phabricator while we are on a page to talk about Phabricator, so you might stick to all the given information. Thanks :)