for what it's worth, I used Difference between revisions of "$1" {{#ifeq:{{#getdisplaytitle:$1}}|$1|| ({{#getdisplaytitle:$1}})}} to conditionally display the display title only if it exists. Otherwise you get this weird double header.

Thanks. That works, though it's a manual workaround and not an automated configuration as part of the extension. Would it be possible to add a configurable to the extension so that Mediawiki:difference-title is created/overwritten to whatever is set as the configured value (so the admin could either do as you suggest or do something different like "Difference between revisions of "$1" ({{#getdisplaytitle:$1}})" to show both page name and display title)?

Thanks for that info, but I think this is generically/universally wrong and the wording should be fixed. Can you point me to where I'd submit a patch for this wording?

I have no need for the qna project.

Per Jeroen:

Thank you!

I agree that the relationship between the software and its users is not the priority of this conference, but I do think it is relevant. Since it is easy and obvious for this group to dive into deep technical issues, I just wanted to put the idea out there that some form of discussion of this relationship would be helpful, even if it's a single topic "on the side". I imagine there might be a large gap in technical understanding between the software developers who really understand the guts of the software and how it should change compared to the end users who only understand "user stories".

For reference, the idea of a special interest group periodically meeting was mentioned in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technical_Conference/2018/Session_notes/How_do_we_work_together#3rd_Party

I'd like to request that the relationship between the MediaWiki software (and supporting services like Parsoid/VE, etc) and the communities using the software like the WMF (as an org), Wikipedia projects, Wikipedia supporting orgs, and enterprise/3rd-party users be formally discussed and organized. Considering the level of work going on to restructure so much regarding the software, this is the time to formally discuss and decide the details, policies, and priorities of these relationships. Maybe the result is that the MediaWiki Stakeholders and/or some new organization formally take on some level of responsibility based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the WMF, Wikipedia orgs, and enterprise/third-party users. Ideally we all come to some kind of agreement now instead of later in order to make better decisions early on in the restructuring (based on the strategic goals).

I don't have any plans to work on this.

Actions out of T206059 included considering Meza in making the MW installation and maintenance process easier.

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technical_Conference/2018/Session_notes/Choosing_installation_methods_and_environments_for_3rd_party_users for outcome

Adding a response to T100154#1667080 here per request to consolidate discussion.

I can add some example use cases for NASA and enterprise wikis. Should I add them here or to T106898 ?

A couple things to consider when addressing the intermittent connectivity case:

Thanks! Our presentation can be found here. If anyone would like the presentation also linked on the hackathon wiki page, please let me know.

I understand starting off with a phab task, but I think it would be appropriate to use a wiki page to collaborate on this product ;)

After my experience at the Hackathon including discussions with many of the WMF and Wikipedia chapters, I think we need to be careful how we present ourselves, our interest in using MW, and what we want in our relationship with the WMF. While some members of the WMF acknowledge the potential for MW use in an enterprise environment, I think most of those in WMF ended up there out of their personal goals to support in the way of volunteerism and world impact. So I imagine we might come across as “entrepreneurs” or “capitalists looking to benefit using their work”. I think we need to adjust our wikivangelism to show that we’re just doing the same thing of trying to share information between communities, but our communities happen to be a “job environment” instead of purely volunteer. For James and myself specifically, we want to share the cumulative expertise of EVA with others within NASA. Unfortunately, it is protected behind a firewall, but that shouldn’t mean we don’t share our knowledge. So maybe what I’m getting at is the main difference between us and voluntary/open wikis is just the firewall. We still have the same underlying goal of sharing the sum of all knowledge within that community. Because we have the same goals, we want to contribute back to the WMF community by using our enterprise resources toward developing new extensions to benefit everyone using MW.

James and I share our extensions through GitHub/enterprisemediawiki. Here is a list of those we mentioned during the presentation:

• SemanticMeetingMinutes
• WatchAnalytics (which will be moved to the "enterprisemediawiki" account soon.
• UserJourney (development just being started - please provide input and guidance!)

Though I wish our wiki was in space, on the ISS, we're not there yet (we need a better offline sync method). I'll shorten the name on the Program page.