Talk:MediaWiki user interface framework

Consolidate

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T403021
Open

Hi, I just want to consolidate, there's a lot of threads going at once.

User talk:Novem Linguae § Codex/Migrating from MediaWiki UI

Hi, I respected the edit by User:Waddie96 and moved Codex/Migrating from MediaWiki UI to Codex/Migrating from MediaWiki UI or OOUI, but should I revert it? Shirayuki (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask the developers of Codex.... Waddie96 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Shirayuki. Yes, let's revert that. There is no content on that page about upgrading OOUI to Codex. Only MediaWiki UI to Codex. I double checked in a technical channel on Discord and other technical contributors agreed with me that MediaWiki UI is definitely different than OOUI.

@Waddie96, it seems like you think that MediaWiki UI and OOUI are the same? That is not correct. MediaWiki UI is a predecessor framework to OOUI. They are different. We cannot combine the two in templates, in page titles, etc. That is my concern. I think we need to undo any recent edits by you that have tried to combine these frameworks. Does that sound reasonable? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:OOUI § Efforts lately to mark OOUI as discouraged seem premature

I've seen some people lately making some moves to discourage OOUI. For example, adding "OOUI is in maintenance mode. New code should use Codex" to the OOUI article, and declining or suggesting declining OOUI tasks on Phabricator (phab:T155567, phab:T101484, phab:T155473).

However, is Codex in a state where it can actually replace OOUI? For example, does HTMLForm::factory( 'ooui' ) have feature parity with HTMLForm::factory( 'codex' )? My impression is that it does not, so trying to wind down OOUI might be premature.

I would consider a new design system to be ready for mass adoption (and the old design system ready for deprecation) when we are able to rewrite the PHP code for all the MediaWiki core special pages in the new design system (without rewriting these pages in Vue), and I don't think we've reached that point yet.

For these reasons, should we stop treating OOUI as discouraged, and remove the "New code should use Codex" message in the OOUI article, and un-decline the mentioned tasks in Phabricator? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Related discussion: phab:T155567#11112809. I've also un-declined some OOUI tasks on Phabricator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Waddie96. You changed this page today to say that ooui is deprecated. Can you please link to somewhere that confirms that ooui is deprecated? This is not something to be declared lightly and needs a source. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No I didn't. It was there on 22 August look Waddie96 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Waddie96 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

When I looked at this page yesterday, it had the softer wording "OOUI is in maintenance mode. New code should use Codex". I still want to have a discussion about that (this talk page section), but I am more OK with that wording than with "OOUI was deprecated in favour of Codex in MediaWiki 1.39." "Deprecated" is much stronger wording.

Same question as above. Do you have a source saying that OOUI is deprecated? Is it marked @deprecated in the code? Is there a Phab ticket calling it deprecated? etc.

Deprecated to me means "go replace it all". But I think there's a strong argument that OOUI is not ready to be replaced by Codex. From discussions I've had with others, I don't think it has reached feature parity with OOUI for some important use cases. And now that the Design Systems Team has been reorganized, it doesn't sound like there's much work being done on Codex. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Deprecated on wiktionary: Said of a function or feature planned to be phased out, but still available for use. Waddie96 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

And now that the Design Systems Team has been reorganized, it doesn't sound like there's much work being done on Codex. That is incorrect. Codex Steering Committee now maintains it. And it's very much having work done on it? Check out the Phab. Waddie96 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

In the context of WMF, my understanding is that a committee is very different from a team in terms of how much time the engineers get to spend on the product. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I see you created MediaWiki user interface framework. Similar page already exists at Design System Team/History of user-interface libraries and frameworks in MediaWiki?

(P.S. @Volker E. (WMF) is MediaWiki user interface framework correct?) Waddie96 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Design System Team/History of user-interface libraries and frameworks in MediaWiki is a very nice find. Thank you for mentioning it here. I have copy pasted some text from there into history sections at the articles JQuery UI, WVUI, and Wikit, and added it to the see also section of MediaWiki user interface framework.

I am flexible on the name of MediaWiki user interface framework. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Is this not a conversation to be had with Codex developers on Phab? x Waddie96 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

If this talk page discussion doesn't get enough people, I will consider re-posting it to a more active venue such as Phabricator and/or wikitech-l. I think we should give it a couple of days though. WMF software engineers may not be back in the office until Monday. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Novem Linguae, I thought I'd consolidate the discussion here. See two previous threads above.

Thanks for your detailed points. I agree "deprecated" is too strong, Jdforrester has pointed this out before—OOUI still works and some features aren't yet in Codex. I suggest wording like:

OOUI in maintenance mode – Codex recommended for new development: OOUI is in maintenance mode. Codex is the recommended UI design system for Wikimedia and is used in all current and future product development. Developers may still continue to use the OOUI library as OOUI remains fully supported, but it is recommended that new work use Codex. For more information, see OOUI .

Also, you’re right that MediaWiki UI and OOUI are different. For definitive guidance, maybe we can check with the Codex Steering Committee or Phabricator.

Hi @Quiddity (WMF), Novem has raised concerns about OOUI vs. Codex and the talk page discussion is getting tangled. Thought you could help since you're in Communications. Could you advise who can provide official guidance? I want to make sure edits stay helpful and accurate without unnecessary conflict.

Waddie96 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't a discussion about deprecating OOUI and the wording of deprecation-ish OOUI banners happen at Talk:OOUI? I'd recommend blanking this page and moving your 02:15, 26 August 2025 comment over there. I consider the MediaWiki UI issue solved and I don't think we need to discuss that aspect anymore, so I don't see a need to copy the User talk:Novem Linguae#Codex/Migrating from MediaWiki UI comments over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Could I ask you to please pause the reverts across OOUI, MediaWiki UI, and Codex? I understand you would like the articles to reflect your perspective, but these frequent changes are generating unnecessary translation work for volunteer translators. Once we have clarity, we can make a definitive update rather than repeatedly revising. For now, could we leave the wording as is until a final decision is reached?

Regarding placement of this thread: this discussion concerns MediaWiki UI, OOUI, and Codex collectively, and you created the combined "MediaWiki user interface framework" page. That is why I thought it appropriate to post here. The consolidated discussions all already point to this page, so it seems the most suitable central location. Waddie96 (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, there's 3 different things that you and I have discussed across multiple pages:

1. The inclusion of a "MediaWiki UI to Codex" link on OOUI-related pages. I reverted all those a day or two ago and that is all cleaned up. I consider that discussion resolved because I don't think it has any chance of achieving consensus to include "MediaWiki UI to Codex" links on OOUI pages. "MediaWiki UI to Codex" links just don't make sense on OOUI pages. MediaWiki UI is the framework from before OOUI and is unrelated to OOUI.
2. What to do about Template:OOUI replaced. Whether it should be deleted, or say OOUI is discouraged, or say OOUI is deprecated. That's what we were discussing on Talk:OOUI#Efforts lately to mark OOUI as discouraged seem premature, and I think that's a good spot for it.
3. What to name this page, which is currently named MediaWiki user interface framework. I think that'd be fine to discuss on this page. But I think #1 and #2 should not be discussed here. Most of this conversation you copy pasted over is #1 and #2.

I still recommend you blank this page. I think #2 is the biggest of the various discussions, and that it belongs on Talk:OOUI. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really about who is right or wrong @Novem Linguae, but about arriving at a clear and definitive answer. Since this is ultimately a factual matter that the developers can clarify, there's no need for us to go back and forth unnecessarily. It would be helpful if we could keep the current wording stable for now, and once we have confirmation from the developers, I'll join the discussion again and we can update accordingly. I think that will make things easier for everyone, including translators. Waddie96 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. For now the suggestion that seems to take this into consideration as I was in error: Template:OOUI replaced/sandbox. Lets await to hear what turns out at the phab ticket. Waddie96 (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

References