Topic on Talk:Requests for comment/Shadow namespaces

I have no idea what this RfC is talking about. It seems to be a duplicate of m:Requests for comment/Global bits and pieces but then I'm not sure why it's called "Global scripts". There is a section "Existing" which talks of totally unrelated things, then "Scopes" which is not about scripts.

I suggest to make it an RfC about global templates or about global gadgets. Any RfC about global templates is useless until someone enables and tests $wgEnableScaryTranscluding somewhere, reporting back with field-tested issues rather than philosophy.

Well global templates rather strongly implies global Lua modules, which should probably be done at the same time (or at least, with the same decisions) as global gadgets. But I do agree that this feels a bit too much like the wrong venue; is this asking about how we would technically achieve it, or are we talking about providing it to Wikimedia wikis? If the latter, this is the wrong place for this discussion, and it's far too narrow in engagement.

Yeah, I noticed similar issues with this RFC last evening as well. I'll do some cleanup.

Indeed James, so true that I think "global templates" implies "global modules" automatically. :)

Thanks MZ, much clearer now. "Shadow namespaces" are what was proposed as "global namespaces" in 2012 by Rd232, tracked at phab:T66474.

I still think that some serious testing of scary transclusion should come first, because we have no real evidence that it's still problematic: in fact, there are wikisource domains which are already doing crosswiki transclusion via terrible hacks and it still works rather well.

In addition, I'd take out of this the things which work rather well simply by HTML transclusion (as DoubleWiki does too, more or less), in particular user pages. Lego's work on Extension:GlobalUserPage can be put into use very soon and doesn't need rethinking.