Talk:MediaWiki

Consolidate trucking

Does any one have a definition of Consolidate Trucking? I would like to be able to read that here on the site under the Consolidated articles

Stable release displaying error

(1st time comment - I hope it's the right place, otherwise my apologies and please delete)

Public MediaWiki page showing error in "summary box" (?) on the right:

"Stable release 1.43.5 / 3 October 2025; 3 October 2025; Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time." Asmonymous (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This is fixed now! Appreciate you flagging it. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Brion Vibber" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Brion Vibber has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 27 § Brion Vibber until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Brion VIBBER" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Brion VIBBER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 27 § Brion VIBBER until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

use of source from mediawiki's wiki

Currently we use the source "MediaWiki history". MediaWiki website. Is there any reason this doesn't violate WP:USERGENERATED? It sure looks user generated to me but maybe somebody will successfully be able to make the claim that it was an official publication of the organization, for example. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the revision we cite is removing some random spam definitely suggests that anyone could edit this page! Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it. Here it is if anyone wants it:

References

These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on this page.

Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Deadnaming

Hi all, just a reminder that MOS:DEADNAME is quite clear that a person's current name and gendered pronouns/nouns should be used. If a former name that they were notable in is pertinent it may be included parenthetically, if relevant, but should not simply be used as if it were their current name.

If folks are simply worried that a 20-year old source doesn't mention my current name, please consider that there is plenty of news coverage in the last few months mentioning my leading role in MediaWiki development and/or former CTO position along with my current name.

Thanks for your time! brooke (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there's basic agreement here about the principle but some details still need to be satisfied. This conversation would probably go a lot faster if an editor (could be you, or anyone else, really) were to present the RS that they feel meets the requirement in MOS:DEADNAME's "Use the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources", after which we can proceed directly. I'll eventually try to search for one myself in the spirit of improving the wiki, but it may take me a while. (My initial attempts at doing so did not lead me directly to any clear claims from sources Wikipedia would consider reliable.)Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In particular, I think it may be difficult to find one that we can use without relying on WP:SYNTH. (Does WP:SYNTH apply here? I suppose it could interact with MOS:DEADNAME in weird ways.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:SYNTH would not apply here; that wouldn't really make sense: the new name is current information about how to refer to people in the here and now and applies to all current writing, per MOS:DEADNAME. The information being cited in the original reference to the old tech videos isn't about my name, it's about my actions as a volunteer and a staff member, and those actions remain the same and are to be described the same.

The current name is new information, but it applies to all current descriptions, according to the policy. I don't think you could justify pretending people haven't changed their names just because you found the new name in a separate source from the thing you were describing about them.

For an example source citation try this article from German tech magazine Heise.de mentioning me in the context of my recent dismissal and the unionization issue:

• original German version
• English official translation from the same publisher

English text:

A week earlier, the WMF management had already dismissed long-time lead developer Brooke Vibber. She had been responsible for the MediaWiki software, which forms the technical basis of the foundation's projects, since 2003. According to a report by former WMF employee Jake Orlowitz, she was also actively involved in the formation of the union beforehand.

If this doesn't clearly connect my current name to my prior name through the fact that we're both longtime core MediaWiki developers since MediaWiki's coming into official existence in 2003, then I'm not sure what it is you think you want.

Are you asking specifically for something that says I changed names and lists both names? There probably isn't anything except mailing lists and social media posts and git commits referencing thousands and thousands of code changes where I update my name in the MediaWiki codebase.

Here's the initial rename in MediaWiki core. brooke (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jaufrec: You readded the deadname in parentheses citing the Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name clause of WP:DEADNAME, but I'm not sure that applies: the word "notable" links to WP:GNG, and Brooke wasn't notable in the GNG sense under her former name. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My logic was that the second reference is about the CTO role, and cites a 2007 book, which resumably uses the deadname, and that that might fall under the credited for the work clause of that sentence:

"If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion."

I don't see that as an especially strong argument for the paranthetical and would not argue to retain it if another editor had an reason to leave it out. Jaufrec (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)