Curiously I was speaking to @Krinkle a couple of weeks ago about Gadgets-2.0 and he told me that no gadgets-* should be assigned to anyone yet.

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

When the Gadgets 2.0 project is done, I expect it to be illegal for that namespace to contain wikitext content or redirects. I'm not 100% sure, but I think at that time, this page would need to be moved, as it couldn't exist in its current form (not even as redirect).

I think this should have happened in 2015 when the namespace was created. And actually, it did happen. "Gadget:Invention" was moved to "Gadget Invention". But, it was moved with a redirect (instead of without). I don't know what we normally do in case of a content-model-restricted namespace (e.g. pre-existing "Schema:" pages on Meta, or "Data:" pages on Commons). But it's also quite possible we haven't run into them previously yet.

In T229735#5389837, @Xaosflux wrote:

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

Agreed :) And as long a these pages can exist that should be fine to do. But, I would recommend we then in relatively short time delete the pages in question, and then restore the current state of things (with these rights not granted to anyone, and that time including not to WMF staff).

In T229735#5597311, @DannyS712 wrote:

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

In T229735#5597761, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

In T229735#5597311, @DannyS712 wrote:

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

And these namespaces have, as far as I can tell, been unable to be used since their introduction in 2015.

In T229735#5597761, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

In T229735#5597311, @DannyS712 wrote:

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

They are reserved to avoid communities creating pages that later have to be moved.

I would personally treat those namespaces as reserved for future use, which should contain 0 pages. By granting the rights we might make some wikis use the namespace for gadget description pages or anything like that.

In T229735#5601496, @Urbanecm wrote:

I would personally treat those namespaces as reserved for future use, which should contain 0 pages. By granting the rights we might make some wikis use the namespace for gadget description pages or anything like that.

The Gadget namespace already has pages in it. The argument that "the namespace has to be empty for technical reasons" has been unanimously rejected at RfD in 2017

When the Gadget system migration continues, I expect these pages to be deleted without warning or redirect. I recommend not getting used to using these titles as they will not remain. Keeping these around will only make them more widespread and result in more issues when the time comes.

If our trusted stewards and interface admins feel better with this user right, go ahead, but I would really like for WMF to not to have to put energy toward cleaning this up again in the future. It's time and energy better spent on other things :)

What about just stewards, to both reduce the eventual impact of deleting all of the pages without warning, and to reduce potential issues?

Agree with Urbanecm here. On enwiki, AFAICT there's one single page in the whole namespace (two if you count the talk), so I have a hard time imagining there's much content elsewhere. In the end does this task just devolve to allowing a dozen or so people on enwiki to add an {{R from...}} tag or two? I think it's fine to grant to intadmins (and stewards) but it's only going to end up with more content somewhere.

@Krinkle regarding "When the Gadget system migration continues," ... the parent task is 8 years old. Agree this isn't really that important to deal with, but it seems that G2.0 has been abandoned.

I think this task should redefined as how to handle pages containing reserved prefix, with example of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no

The issues we have with reserved prefix:

1. Title - Displaytitle magic word should support overriding the title to have "Gadget:" (e.g {{DISPLAYTITLE:Gadget: Invention, Travel, & Adventure}})
2. Search - Improve the search to better respect DISPLAYTITLE - for example T65975
3. Links - maybe have a fallback machnism in case a page doesn't exist in reserved NS?

So its been a year, still no action - who is holding this up?

If there is no clear roadmap for Gadgets 2.0, the namespace should be released back to the community for normal usage.

I under stand not wanting to pollute it with things that will eventually have to get cleaned up if becomes the canoical namespace name, but let the community manage it.

These namespaces are reserved for future usage, and no community shall be permitted to put any single page under a name that will require struggle and moving and efforts later.

Since no one shall create any page here there is no need to give anybody the capability to create anything under reserved namespace numbers and name scheme.

In T229735#6594099, @PerfektesChaos wrote:

These namespaces are reserved for future usage, and no community shall be permitted to put any single page under a name that will require struggle and moving and efforts later.

Since no one shall create any page here there is no need to give anybody the capability to create anything under reserved namespace numbers and name scheme.

When's the "future" in the future usage?

It does not matter. It might be in 2 or 5 or 10 years.

If a page name scheme is reserved for system purposes it is the absolute contradiction of wisdom to ask over and over again for occupation of this name scheme for articles. They are blocked, they shall stay blocked, and nobody shall create a naming conflict against better knowledge. Those who want to set up articles in this field need to be creative and find other names. One day you would have to do that anyway, so start it right from the beginning which is causing least trouble.

You might pray that never ever the Coast Miwok create an active Wikipedia. If they do you will have to move and rename a lot of articles related to Crime Scene Investigation stories.

In T229735#6594262, @PerfektesChaos wrote:

It does not matter. It might be in 2 or 5 or 10 years.

If a page name scheme is reserved for system purposes it is the absolute contradiction of wisdom to ask over and over again for occupation of this name scheme for articles. They are blocked, they shall stay blocked, and nobody shall create a naming conflict against better knowledge. Those who want to set up articles in this field need to be creative and find other names. One day you would have to do that anyway, so start it right from the beginning which is causing least trouble.

You might pray that never ever the Coast Miwok create an active Wikipedia. If they do you will have to move and rename a lot of articles related to Crime Scene Investigation stories.

That makes literally no sense but I'll play, I guess.

1. It does matter. It matters if something is actually happening, if it's a hypothetical and most importantly, when it is happening. Surely, since we know the scientific evidence points to the Sun going cold in ~5 billion years, we don't sit at home and while away our days knowing we'll go extinct anyway, nor can we actively prepare for such an incident. So yes, it absolutely matters whether it happens or not, just like everything else (and if you're claiming any "years" at all, I'd like to see definitive proof that there is a timeline for that).
2. The "better" knowledge you speak of is entirely subjective. There is no timeline for G2.0 and there was no assent taken from the communities before it was made, so it seems extremely shortsighted to take away control in a retrospective manner and attempt to justify that even after there is no actual real progress being made (https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Extension:Gadgets/Roadmap&action=history)

It baffles me why letting privileged community members edit a few pages should be a big deal, because all of this can be easily dealt with "X" years into the future, if anything actually works out at all, and which as of now, seems highly unlikely.

If your city administration's plan for the next decades is to build some street at some place, even if setting up that street may not start in the next 30 years because plans or money change, then you usually do not intentionally build houses in that very place to make everything deliberately more complicated to fix later on.

In T229735#6594344, @Aklapper wrote:

If your city administration's plan for the next decades is to build some street at some place, even if setting up that street may not start in the next 30 years because plans or money change, then you usually do not intentionally build houses in that very place to make everything deliberately more complicated to fix later on.

That would be all nice and good if we actually were a city administration but we aren't, we are a free-flowing conglomeration of volunteer contributors. Although with something as inefficient as any city administration, your comparison does make a whole lot of sense.

The amount of effort required to create or delete a redirect on a Wikimedia project is not at all comparable to building or demolishing a house. (And, since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no already exists, I disagree that this task, or creating more redirects, makes things meaningfully more complicated)

To get a sense of the scope of this, I ran a quick search:
dannys712@tools-sgebastion-07:~$ while read wiki; do echo "SELECT COUNT(page_id) AS 'count', GROUP_CONCAT(CONCAT(page_namespace, '-', page_title)) AS 'titles' FROM page WHERE page_namespace IN (2300, 2302)" | sql $wiki | sed "s/^/$wiki\t/g"; done < <(curl https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/dblists/all.dblist)
after filtering the results to remove wikis with no pages in the gadget and gadget definition namespace, I found that:

Enwiki's Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure is the only page, on any wiki, in those namespaces

So all of the talk about this in the abstract can really be boiled down to: is there any need for that page to be edited, and is that need frequent enough to warrant granting the rights? I don't think that it is, at least for interface admins, and stewards and other global groups are not managed here.
While yes, the rights would also be used to allow creating of more pages in those namespaces, are there any cases of other pages being desired?

The cause of the recent activity on this task was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Creation_of_the_page_Gadget:Past_as_Future, so yes there are cases of other pages being desired.

@Aklapper Earlier this year you marked the Gadgets 2.0 raodmap as historical. I totally understand reserving the namespace for future use, but being reserved also means we should hear allocation requests. The original plans have apparently fallen through, so the tentative allocation has practically been forfeited. If communities have plans for the namespace, we should seriously consider allowing usurpation. Similarly, if a city administration plans to build a road and allocates no funds or work to it for nearly a decade, I would bet they'd seriously consider a community request to build a park there instead--they were the ones who slept on the plan after all.

@DannyS712 There's a request on EnWiki for another similar redirect which prompted this current discussion. It's not a widespread plan, but I'd imagine more gadgets would be defined and documented in that space if the community had edit access.

It's probably worth stating that the request was made by a sockpuppet of an account globally locked for "Long-term abuse".

The question is, is it impossible to make the setting and hide these namespaces in all the wiki of the foundation for now? And then turn them back on, if necessary. No one will even notice, but this will at least reduce the load on the search filters.

In T229735#7065727, Iniquity wrote:

The question is, is it impossible to make the setting and hide these namespaces in all the wiki of the foundation for now? And then turn them back on, if necessary. No one will even notice, but this will at least reduce the load on the search filters.

You do realize, @Iniquity, that the Education Program namespaces removal task T217137 is open for years, and these ones will never be in use?

In T229735#7065747, @IKhitron wrote:

In T229735#7065727, Iniquity wrote:

The question is, is it impossible to make the setting and hide these namespaces in all the wiki of the foundation for now? And then turn them back on, if necessary. No one will even notice, but this will at least reduce the load on the search filters.

You do realize, @Iniquity, that the Education Program namespaces removal task T217137 is open for years, and these ones will never be in use?

Regarding the Education Program, it just turned out that it is still active in some wikis T282112: Delete "Education Program" and "Education Program talk" namespace from ruwiki. You can turn them off.

Even so, it doesn't mean they should appear in the rest for years.

The change needed for this request is trivial. Is this superprotection still being held up by system developers?

And yes, I do plan to use my Iadmin rights to create a bunch of redirects in Gadget namespace the moment that is deployed.

Can local interface admins edit gadget pages now, or is this still a pending item?

They can. I was able to create https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Past_as_Future&redirect=no in December 2023.