Update (21 June 2021)

@Emufarmers this is moving along

Request filed on meta, I think I did it correctly.

It looks like this is complete now? @Urbanecm @Ruthven

Lingering part of this task is making a new logo.

In T280400#7108523, @Krenair wrote:

Martin: Sounds good, thanks. If you re-run your WebAuthn query now you should get a more convenient result :)

@DC: I notice you made https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=106111&oldid=105487&diffmode=source - I'm wondering why we think there would definitely be downtime? Did I misunderstand part of the plan?

In T280392#7107471, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

I’ve just noticed that the group name in Commons’ {{TemplateBox}} is broken, because the group name message was renamed almost three years ago from group-OTRS-member to group-otrs-member. I could fix it now, but I’d like to avoid editing a template used on tens of thousands of pages twice within a short time. Do you know when—or whether—the MediaWiki message will be renamed?

The bot on Commons is working to complete its template replacement task, it should take a few weeks. While this is going on, the migration organizing group will be slowing things down for a few weeks as we organize for the next steps needed to replace text on wikis and rename pages/have pages renamed. I'll update the task further at the end of the month.

Keegan

Naming convention page is published. I will be notifying translators shortly. If you're reading this and can contribute a translation, please help out.

@Zabe thanks, I forgot about this already being here.

Permission request

Status update:

In T271936#7066623, @Samwalton9 wrote:

I think there's a good chance this launch happens next quarter. Best case end of June.

@Samwalton9 is this still planned for this quarter?

We're making progress on our to-do list, we're nearly done with Phase 2 on schedule and getting an early start on some Phase 3 items. I plan to start drafting naming convention guidelines this week for sharing within the next two-to-three weeks.

In T280400#7011990, @Krenair wrote:

In T280400#7011162, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Renaming a wiki is extremely complex and we have done it only once (b-x-old to be-tarask and that one is not also finished properly yet) and it's still quite a mess (probably the renaming script is also terribly broken by now) and all renames are blocked T172035: Blockers for Wikimedia wiki domain renaming

we did also rename chapcom.wikimedia.org -> affcom.wikimedia.org in T41482 and et.wikimedia.org -> ee.wikimedia.org in T31919. Those being special (and in the case of chapcom, private) wikis likely makes them better precedents for this.

In all those cases we kept the internal name of the wiki the same (so you still need the old name in the config files), but the domain that users see/use was changed.

In T280400#7011162, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Seconding what Martin said. Renaming a wiki is extremely complex and we have done it only once (b-x-old to be-tarask and that one is not also finished properly yet) and it's still quite a mess (probably the renaming script is also terribly broken by now) and all renames are blocked T172035: Blockers for Wikimedia wiki domain renaming (while some of the blockers are not applicable here, like wikidata support). It's also risky given that it can bring down all wikis.

If there's problem with trademark or legal. We might be able to make it work (given that it's a private wiki, doesn't need wikidata, ...) with lots of efforts and testing but if it's just naming. Let's wait until the blocker task is fully (on my volunteer work roadmap)

@Urbanecm thanks for the questions. We'll probably want to pursue this in more depth in at least a week or two. We're undertaking the renaming stuff so we can do it on our own pace and schedule before the time ever comes when we get an order to do this for legal reasons. This way we can plan at our own pace.

In T271936#6925149, @Elitre wrote:

@Keegan status?

The migration to Znuny LTS 6.0 is complete.

In T279303#6993277, @akosiaris wrote:

I am gonna be bold and resolve this as it pertains to the actual migration and that part seems to have gone quite well. I am pretty sure we have a ton of followup work, especially regarding relabelling/rebranding, but let's track all those in their own respective tasks.

Sounds good, thank you.

@akosiaris I assume the usual process of emails being held in queue during the migration will occur? My other question, we can assure people that if something happens this is easy to roll back and there's no direct risk of data loss, correct? (naturally there's risk involved in everything, I'm checking our tolerances).

In T275294#6972938, @Aklapper wrote:

In T275294#6972793, @Keegan wrote:

something else we may need to do in the near future, move OTRS wiki to a new name

Should become a separate ticket under https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/2943/ I guess, and this ticket should be a subtask of that new ticket.

In T275294#6972901, @Tgr wrote:

Please do not rename anything on your local wiki, the migration project team will handle renamings as needed.

I think local projects, especially non-English ones, are better placed to figure out how to rename things. OTRS is the name of a software so using that made some sense (although it was always a bit unhelpful since it's not a widely known piece of software) but using "Volunteer Response Team" / "VRT" on a non-English project doesn't and a mirror translation might not work well either. Providing some sort of "branding guidelines" (e.g. one might want to make clear this is something run by volunteers and not Wikipedia Inc.) would be a better approach.

Okay, so to sum this all up:

In T275294#6972574, @Krenair wrote:

I can be around during that window I think.

7:00-900 UTC on 13 April sounds good, I'll communicate that along. FWIW, I learned this weekend that WMDE has already forked their OTRS to Znuny LTS, it went quickly and painlessly.

In T275294#6971941, @Aklapper wrote:

I've updated https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Upstream_projects&type=revision&diff=4511668&oldid=4275699 , please do so again after move. TIA

In T275294#6971756, @akosiaris wrote:

In T275294#6968900, @Keegan wrote:

I would prefer to wait a week until this is published in Tech/News, I'm meeting with the admins and we're discussing and planning a larger re-branding effort. For now the migration is simply a re-branding our software internals, communicating this change needs to be done carefully to avoid confusion.

So, April 20th? Fine by me.

I would prefer to wait a week until this is published in Tech/News, I'm meeting with the admins and we're discussing and planning a larger re-branding effort. For now the migration is simply a re-branding our software internals, communicating this change needs to be done carefully to avoid confusion.

In T275294#6906848, @MoritzMuehlenhoff wrote:

There's now a group of companies related to OTRS which will be collaborating on Znuny: https://www.otter-alliance.de/en/die-allianz.html

I think it's sufficient. It confirms that VFC's functionality is fine, the only thing you'd need is to point VFC to MediaSearch instead of Search and that's one line of code to change. We'll work it into our formal release plans for logged-in users.

FWIW, Znuny has helped us before, in 2013 (T24622). Znuny was founded by Martin Edenhofer, the original author of OTRS.

"Switch to the text-based Special:Search"?

In T271105#6782179, @CBogen wrote:

@Keegan and @matthiasmullie, do you have a sense of what this would break on our end and/or for the community? and @Keegan do you know of any policies that this change would fall under?

We released this.

In T267954#6625635, @CBogen wrote:

In T267954#6625431, @Keegan wrote:

In T267954#6625225, @CBogen wrote:

cc @Keegan - any thoughts on this?

I agree, now that we're stable linking to the help docs would be good.

What about moving the docs from Help:CirrusSearch/MediaSearch to Help:MediaSearch?

In T267954#6625225, @CBogen wrote:

cc @Keegan - any thoughts on this?

At least one message (of 111) I sent out yesterday duplicated, on the Italian Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Keegan_(WMF)#Twice).

FWIW the oversight capacities live in RevisionDelete.

You're basically onto it @bd808 , what I would consider the three bundles of tools:

• Moderation tools–the revisiondeletion suite that serves mainly administrators and oversighters
• Editing tools–undo and user-created revert tools, editing scripts, talk page templates
• Documentation tools–page history and logs, user contribution history and logs

Documentation for setting fallback images on Commons is up: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph#User_defined_fallback

In T236892#6302246, @AlexisJazz wrote:

In T236892#6301847, @Keegan wrote:

In T236892#6301702, @AlexisJazz wrote:

@Keegan @MarkTraceur Can you provide a query for cirrus search to find affected articles?

I think this works:

all: insource:"<graph>" insource:/"<graph>"/

Found at T211881#5065149

The review in that comment is fairly informative from an enwiki standpoint, which shows its usage is limited in the article space and is mainly propagated through a few templates and talk page usage.

A preliminary look at the other wikis (~10) that use the graph tag finds similar results.

@Keegan @dr0ptp4kt No. This is not complete. That query is not case-insensitive so <Graph> won't match, {{#tag:graph won't match and possibly the worst offender, <graph mode=interactive won't match.

In cases where mode=interactive is not used, there is no reason to use Javascript. You should be caching these. The interaction in the interactive ones doesn't seem to work very well. This thing for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Global_Heat_Maps_by_Year confuses the hell out of me. But that's the JS version. I don't know if it worked any better before.

Oh crap, I just broke it entirely. The whole map is blue now and the current year is gone. The scale at the bottom is still there, but flatlined. Can't do anything now. Having this constant jquery spinner until you activate it is also miserable. If it worked any better, I suggest you turn server side rendering back on and actually consult with the community for a solution. I'm not saying server side rendering should remain indefinitely, but ask the community.

In T236892#6301702, @AlexisJazz wrote:

@Keegan @MarkTraceur Can you provide a query for cirrus search to find affected articles?

Thanks, Mark. And my apologies, folks, I didn't catch what the final decisions were on architecture between the go-ahead for this in mid-May and where we wound up. We'll work on making sure documentation is in order for setting fallback images, and get the word out about it to communities. I think this affects around ten to twelve wikis that actively use the graph tag in some way, I'll go back over the data.

I've asked someone from Engineering to clarify some things here, I think there's some misunderstandings but I'm not deep enough into the technical terms to answer on my own.

At this point it looks like we're a little over two weeks out from release:

FYI: this work is still on track to be completed by the end of this month. We'll continue to provide updates as we get closer.

In T236892#6185989, @Pelagic wrote:

Agree with AlexisJazz, about need for more explanation. How is client-side JS more maintainable than server-side?

This round of SDC completed, as far as IRC office hours goes. We will do more in the future for the next round.

This isn't happening in any form discussed in 2017 at least and not for the last grant cycle, so no.

In T236892#6135375, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

I think even disabling graphs for all would still be a better solution than disabling them only for some. Imagine that the article says “the change over the years is shown on the below graph:”—and there’s no graph. There is a clear promise on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility that the content will be presented for Grade C browsers in a readable manner; this must be followed by all WMF software.