Talk:MediaWiki/Homepage redesign/Design Document/Texts

Copying current texts
, could you please copy the texts we are currently using in the homepage or other main pages that try to accomplish equivalent missions? This way we don't start from scratch. For instance, currently the homepage says "MediaWiki is a free software open source wiki package written in PHP, originally for use on Wikipedia"... It is worth seeing whether the current texts are good, and if not why, and how to improve them, tuning them or starting from scratch? Thank you.--Qgil (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Yes, of course. --monteirobrena (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured MediaWiki users
The current mockup suggests three "testimonials". Well, I'm not sure whether they will end up being testimonials or featured projects. In any case, if I had to pick three I would highlight Wikimedia, Wikia, and SemanticMediaWiki. We could also consider to give 50% of space to Wikimedia, founder and biggest user & developer of MediaWiki, since we have plenty of Wikimedia specific content in the site. Selected therse three it will be easier to start thinking in all the smaller icons.--Qgil (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, now I see that the last mockup has a single row of bigger logos at the same level. Actually the previous version with 3 featured and then many small logos was more adequate to portrait the MediaWiki community.--Qgil (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I put the testimonials section back in the mockup. See if it's better now ;) --monteirobrena (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting text and discussion
I propose that we do like Wikipedia, using the main page for actual text and moving all the discussions here. This way we can feel clearly the tone of the page. No it is very difficult, with all the comments inserted.--Qgil (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you. --monteirobrena (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just want to mention that I'm being literal in the texts, meaning that I'm proposing no "MediaWiki" or "Features" titles on purpose, having "Community collaboration — all sizes covered"as motto instead. We can argue about the content of the motto, but I think the decision affecting the mockup would be not to have those obvious titles. What do you think?--Qgil (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous versions
The current homepage contains a link to last version of MediaWiki and two links to the previous versions. Moreover has a download button that redirect to Download page. Keep just a prominent download button give more highlight to "How get MediaWiki?" and occupies less space. --monteirobrena (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What about consolidating all this in a big clear simple "Get MediaWiki", moving all the details to that page. It's not only that you can get differnt versions of MediaWiki, you can also get MediaWiki in different ways, from a tarball download to available in many hosting panels, joinging a farm...--Qgil (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and in fact I just proposed to get rid of everything around the "Get MediaWiki" button. Some of those options can be elsewhere in the homepage (sidebar included) and some dn't need to be there. Let's keep everything as clean as possible, focusing the attention where it matters.--Qgil (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Removed links near the download button in the last version of mockup. --monteirobrena (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would still remove the version number and the "Try online". All this can be explained behind the "Get MediaWiki" big button. More buttons mean more option, but also more hesitant users lost. I'd rather focus the attention on less call for action.--Qgil (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Removed the version number and "Try online" button. Thank you. --monteirobrena (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Features / Benefits
Let's agree on the most relevant features that make MediaWiki stand apart. We will base our story in the frontpage on these.


 * A safe bet on freedom
 * Widely tested, reliable, scalable... exactly like Wikipedia
 * Developed and maintained by a big community
 * Wikimedia Foundation guarantees freedom, transparency, and continuity


 * Versatile
 * Extensible, plenty of extensions, shape it to your needs
 * Skins, customize look & feel (let's not oversell this)
 * Fine tune CSS and JavaScript from editing interface
 * (Lua) templates
 * Javascript gadgets
 * Maintenance bots
 * Mobile UI, including editing and uploading
 * Spam and vandalism


 * Designed for community collaboration
 * From WYSIWIG to wiki syntax and HTML
 * Publish and embed media
 * Easy access to Wikimedia Commons free media
 * Collaboration behind the scenes aka discussions tied to pages


 * Best i18n support
 * Multilingual
 * Translation workflow
 * Crowdsourcing translations

Sources: Manual:MediaWiki feature list, Possible uses of MediaWiki, Manual:Before installing.


 * That's some good suggestions. Though, some seem more important than others to me, e.g. 'Mobile UI' and such. I'll try to invorporate these into my mockup, let's see what it looks like. --Courier New (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds great and I think we need to add security-related features, too. --monteirobrena (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Currently the mockup is suggesting six features. A fifth one can be about the extensibility/customization of MediaWiki through extensions and gadgets. "Security" is a wide concept, what do you mean exactly? Other suggestions are welcome. Let's not forget that this homepage is going to be editable, meaning that the community might decide to change the features highlighted. We are aiming to have a good default.--Qgil (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As "Security" I mean that MediaWiki implements: authentication, authorization, history of what each does and policy for disposal of items and files. --monteirobrena (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having some thoughts considering the chance of "Edit" becoming our big word. The following titles of the features could be consitent with this, helping to create that story we have been talking about: Embed, Discuss, Translate, Extend, On the go, Freely. Below we could have the community section under Contribute. The top sections of the sidebar could also be consistent with this. All in all the tone of voice would be a call to action, which fits with the origins and the current reality of MediaWiki.--Qgil (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)