Talk:Extension requests

Wrong namespace
This page should not be located in the Project namespace. The project namespace is for discussion of the MW.org website, not the software. I have previously requested that it is renamed to 'Site:' to avoid this confusion, but Brion refused. However, if this is still causing confusion then it would be good to get a community consensus on a rename, which would probably be enough to convince him of the change.

This page should either be located in the main namespace or the Extension namespace.

--HappyDog 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Extension:Requests? —Eep² 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page should be moved. While the distinctions betweeen namespaces aren`t always as clear here as on on Wikipedia, this page is not related to the software, or the administration of this site- the stated purpose of the "Project" namespace. I can see moving this page either to the extension namespace, or to mainspace, along with Bugzilla, which is also dealing with requests for software improvment. More broadly, we might want to define the projectspace a bit more- besides this page, there`s Project:Support desk, which is about the software but in projectspace. Also,  About this site is in mainspace. Anyways, I`m intrested in what everyone thinks of these naming issues.  --Brian 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Project:Namespaces gives some information about the namespaces, but perhaps it is not clear enough. The roles of the various namespaces are pretty well defined by now, at least to the people who have been here for while, but you're right that they are not very clearly documented.  I will try and update that page soon with the current namespace definitions.  On top of that a lot of pages are currently in the wrong place.  This is partly due to the confusion, but also largely due to pages that were created before the namespace usage was defined and which have not been moved yet.  In relation to this page, it does fall slightly on a boundary, but I think it should really be in the main namespace.  The extension namespace is really for the actual extensions themselves, not discussion or feature proposals.  Extension matrix sets a good precedent. --HappyDog 16:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications. Based on the above I agree this page should go to the main namespace, which I will probably do in a few days if no one objects. Also, I continue to believe that the other pages I mentioned above may be in the wrong namespace, though I want to be sure I`m acting within preccedent, so I look forward to your updates to  the namespace policy.  --Brian 06:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks
I need an extension to avoid anonymous users (rigorously users who can't edit) to see the redlink for edit new articles. Then they must see a special styled (the CSS must specify it) title. At least I wonna know how to create it (the name of parser functions). Thanks!Eloy 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Feature requests on Meta-Wiki
Top links to Category:Feature requests on Meta-Wiki. This is a dead page. Page and entries all from 2006 and before. --Subfader 12:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved requests
What happens to them? --Subfader 12:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup!
Created 2 new subpages.


 * Resolved requests (Moved those with [RESOLVED] in front)
 * Old requests from before 2007 (Too old to keep upfront. May be solved meanwhile by new MW versions)

No data lost except the 2 removed outdated metawiki links.

The left request still could lists solved requests but one would have to read them to move them to the subpage. --Subfader 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this Page?
What is the purpose of this page? It says "Use this page for preliminary proposal and discussion of ideas". But actions speak louder than words. Requests have been consistently ignored for years. All that really is being done for the most part is people put requests up, and then they are left there to die. The only lucky ones are ones that an extension developer obtains from somewhere else. I don't mean to sound too harsh. But it is what has been happening. There are some awesome ideas on this page. But they are just ignored. If the developers are not going to discuss these ideas to determine if they can be implemented, then there is no point to keep this page.--Matt 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded
I agree, most of the ideas on this page are excellent and should be discussed by the Developers and then this page can be deleted. It's casting MediaWiki in a very bad light... --Stuart Halliday 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've ever heard of this page -- it's certainly not actively used by MediaWiki developers.

Tracking of actual work on such things belongs on Bugzilla. Initial discussion might be better served on IRC and the mailing lists; discussion specific to a topic should probably go on a page on the wiki, and people can link around to those pages from various discussion areas. --brion 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you not hearing about kind of proves the point of not be used by developers. By the way, could you look the suggests I made here. The ones about changing the list redirects special page and the one listing redirecting links on a page? They should not be too hard to implement.--Matt 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted a lot of requests and splitted the page with into active, old & solved. I guess the page is read by hundreds of new users, unexperienced and non-programmers. But only a handful of devs or extension coders read it. The page once read that if a dev posts some interest on your request you should go somewhere to post your idea... But I had some luck in the past that's why I keep posting new requests but I really miss replies and discussion. --Subfader 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page was never wanted by developers. It exists because people want to post their ideas for extensions, but either don't know about, or want to go through, the correct channels.  Unfortunately, the more requests posted here, the higher it's profile becomes, and the more likely other users who want an extension are to find it... and so the snowball grows.  However developers aren't looking for this kind of thing on the wiki, and so never come across it, and therefore posting here is essentially useless.  Had anyone asked a developer beforehand whether a page like this would be a good idea, the answer would have been no, hence the notice that has been added to the top of the page.
 * It should also be noted that there are very few (if any) developers who will write an extension solely because someone requested it - they will write it because it interests them, either as a challenging bit of coding, or as something that they personally will have a use for. The way to get it made is therefore to get a developer interested - find developers who've done similar things, post on their page, chat to them on IRC, etc.  Somehow engage them.  Think of it a bit like having a great idea for a story, trying to find an author to write it for you! --HappyDog 04:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean: wrong channels. But you can't really think it would work? You expect hundreds of new and unexperienced users to use / understand IRC or Bugzilla. I'm quite experienced but the Bugzilla form is even too much for me, I always think I do sth wrong. So why not have a handful of people check the requests page instead? I mean you have the power to remove spam within minutes but not for this what in the end pushes MW forward? And Bugzilla is the wrong channel! You don't really want Bugzilla to be filled with bug reports about missing functions that already exist (that's how half of the requests here are solved). Could end in devs not reading Bugzilla anymore :D --Subfader 01:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The page action is killed to zero since The damn huge red warning tells you to stop wasting your time. Before you got at least a few answers.


 * That was the point of the damn huge red warning. —Emufarmers(T 05:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * :D --Subfader 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)