Board Thread:Watercooler/@comment-24473195-20150915112607/@comment-24473195-20150915140245

You can see a better explanation on the cons of the current approach by an experienced MediaWiki developer here (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106177#1543636).

Ultimately, I don't see a problem even if wikia implements /doc pages. It is a simple enough thing to redirect lua doc pages to their namespace here using a javascript or move them back using bots. As far as storage of javascript is concerned, either the gadget namespace or a git solution is in fact better. But for now, we'll have to wait and see how wikia's solution will be implemented.

One core principle of programming is to assume bad faith. If there is a chance things will break, it is better to avoid them and develop counter-measures rather than keep doing things the same way simply because they "work". That's what lead to wikipedia's decline and the  current "javascript crisis".

It has been more than a year since LUA was introduced by wikia, hoping for their built in solution to documentation is doesn't make sense anymore.

What would be your counter-proposal for documenting modules properly?