@Nemo_bis

It's high priority because it's the first thing one should do when starting work on this MediaWiki core component i.e. templates. However, nobody has been working in this area for a while.

Do you have evidence that there are Gerrit patches to fix this problem, if not, then I don't think that this can be a reason to keep High priority for more than a decade.

This task was authored in 2006, now its 2019. This seems like a never ending process. Any comments on status and roadmap, or should this task be closed as rejected?

@Capankajsmilyo: If nobody is against implementing this there is no reason why to reject it. You are free to contribute a patch if you'd like to see this functionality. The age of a task is completely irrelevant.

I would like watchlists to be allowed in templates. A watchlist for English Wikipedia. A watchlist for Meta. A watchlist for Mediawiki.org

And I want to be able to stack those watchlists on one crosswiki set of show/hide watchlists on one page. A page like this:

Wikipedia:Dashboard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dashboard

Reflect actual priority for developers - I support this, but its been sitting here for so long its clearly not "high priority"

Interwiki (cross wiki) Transclusion would be extremely useful. An example is the template Infobox. This template on commons does not work at all. Transcluding it from Wikipedia would help so much.

In the task description: "Templates for interwiki links (interlanguage links); this would make the interlang bot activity almost unnecessary." Hasn't that not already been resolved with wikidata as repository for interlanguage links? @Wiki.Melancholie are you ok with updating the task description?

In T6547#6724982, @AdHuikeshoven wrote:

@Wiki.Melancholie are you ok with updating the task description?

Please note that Wiki.Melancholie is a Bugzilla user name, not a Phabricator one, so this user won’t get any notification about your ping. Although there’s no direct connection between Bugzilla user names and Meta user names, it seems quite likely that this name belongs to User:Melancholie, a user inactive for almost eleven years, so I don’t expect any answer even if someone writes on their talk page. (This also means that this user went inactive well before Wikidata’s launch eight years ago, so they had no chance to incorporate this change in the description.)

I personally think that such important justifications should not be removed from the description, but crossing it out or marking it

• resolved

with a note about Wikidata is totally okay.

Hello, I don't know if it's the right topic here but if someone has a nice template in xxwiki, how to make it crosswiki ?
For instance, I have a frwiki template, it has a LangSwitch to help show custom text for each wiki. So that if I modify something in frwiki, I can just copy paste among wikis and basta. But someone did not like that and consider enwiki as the sole and unique wiki that shouldn't be international.... So is there another way to have "international" template?

Hi Bouzinac, this task is about supporting crosswiki template inclusion only.
Please bring up other questions in forums, e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech - thanks! :)

In T6547#6734367, @Bouzinac wrote:

Hello, I don't know if it's the right topic here but if someone has a nice template in xxwiki, how to make it crosswiki ?
For instance, I have a frwiki template, it has a LangSwitch to help show custom text for each wiki. So that if I modify something in frwiki, I can just copy paste among wikis and basta. But someone did not like that and consider enwiki as the sole and unique wiki that shouldn't be international.... So is there another way to have "international" template?

There's no good way to make it crosswiki. "Copy paste among wikis and basta" is the only thing we have. It may sound simple to somebody who is very experienced with programming templates, but for most people it's extremely difficult. This is exactly the thing that this very old request is trying to address.

I wrote what I know about the current way to import templates across wikis on the page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Global_templates/Transition in the section "What happens today". The other sections on the same page are proposals of how it can be improved, and none of them are actually usable today. I asked a few experienced people, and no one could think of anything more comprehensive than what is written on that page, but if anyone reading this can think of something better, then by all means let me know.

See a test (for now orientative) global template at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global:Template:Online_event

And more info at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_template

It would be interesting create a Template:Global_documentation , to use within global templates.

I do know how costly a solution would be, but given how high the importance is, the priority is surely at least medium. The only reason reason given (in 2019) for not setting it high was to reflect "actual priority for developers", which didn't seem high since this had stayed outstanding for so many years🙄

I strongly disagree with reducing this ticket’s priority to "Low". I consider this a very high importance issue, and the cost seems reasonable considering that the MediaWiki change which was meant to solve the performance problem was formerly merged.

I failed to figure out who made the description link to T58388, but I removed the link since that issue:

1. has low priority
2. is about MediaWiki
3. would apparently not help with Wikimedia websites, which are the subject of this issue.

I strongly disagree with reducing this ticket’s priority to "Low".

@Chealer: It does not matter. Priority reflects reality. It does not influence planning. Feel free to contribute patches if you'd like to get a ticket closer to resolution.

In T6547#10977498, @Aklapper wrote:

I strongly disagree with reducing this ticket’s priority to "Low".

@Chealer: It does not matter. Priority reflects reality. It does not influence planning.

Of course it does. We would not grant a GSoC project to an issue with the lowest priority. Those with an understanding of "Low" as generous as yours should notice that from the tens of thousands of tickets on this instance, not even 10 of those tracking outstanding (non-meta-)issues have as many reactions/tokens as this one (15), among which:

1. several have negative reactions (unlike this one)
2. one is T121470.

Also note that even T41610 has a higher priority than "Low".

Feel free to contribute patches if you'd like to get a ticket closer to resolution.

I rarely ever "contribute patches", but:

1. My contribution here is fully volunteer and I have already done more than enough.
2. A patch is not what is needed for this ticket, nor by the issue blocking this one which does need code changes (T11890).

If you really think that priorities don't matter, please accept compromises and refrain from further playing with them.
In any case, feel free to focus on constructive ways to contribute.

Of course it does.

@Chealer: "... priority fields summarise and reflect reality and do not cause it". Please move further high-level discussion to the general Phabricator talk page instead. Thanks!

In T6547#10984538, @Aklapper wrote:

Of course it does.

@Chealer: "... priority fields summarise and reflect reality and do not cause it".

That’s preciously dichotomous; the Priority field, just like all others, is reflexive (bidirectional), ITSs being cybernetic systems.

Please move further high-level discussion to the general Phabricator talk page instead. Thanks!

That’s not "the general Phabricator talk page". You can ask there, but it may be best to ask upstream or even in project management forums. Your misconception may just come from relying on that home-made "etiquette" page. Some more focused/established literature may suffice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirement_prioritization
https://www.diamondehenderson.com/blog/value-vs-cost-prioritization-simplified
https://www.productplan.com/glossary/value-vs-complexity/

@Chealer: I explained how things currently are. If you want to discuss or challenge how things currently are, then please do so on the corresponding Talk page. All your ideas how ITSs work are off-topic in this task (see the task title what's the topic). Please refrain from more high-level discussion about Phabricator policies etc in unrelated tasks, and do that instead where policies are defined. Thanks.

@Aklapper: This ticket is not a platform to argue for whatever conception of priorities you have. If you want this ITS to define Priority in a specific way, please argue for that in a specific ticket, ideally upstream.
That being said, I would expect someone who thinks that priority does not matter to prioritize other things than playing with priorities and their definition.
Thank you

@Chealer: Same request to you, basically. Please consider this a last warning not to start meta discussions on global Phabricator policies in unrelated tickets if you'd like to remain active in Wikimedia Phabricator. Thanks for your understanding.

@Aklapper: You are the one who started a meta-discussion here; please refrain from getting this ticket further off-track than you already did.
For the last time, thank you for focusing on constructive ways you can contribute to our projects