Board Thread:Script Suggestions/@comment-1158325-20160320103956/@comment-11733175-20160321195854

DaNASCAT wrote: Our strategy right now with Gadgets is similiar to how we are treating Semantic MediaWiki. We will continue to support Gadgets to the best of our ability (hence why adding Gadget messages to the whitelist is still a to-do), but the extension simply isn't how we want our long-term custom architecture and security design to look. So we are not going to enable it anywhere - certainly not while the messages are locked down since the extension would be practically useless anyway to a fresh install - while continuing to allow it in the places it has already been installed.

That's quite different to the messages posted above that suggest that Gadgets is going to be forcibly removed after migration to site JS/CSS.

SuperSajuuk wrote: I'm already advising a wiki that uses Gadgets to shift its gadgets code to common.js/common.css if possible, since anything that is TOU compliant can just be added directly to JS/CSS (especially as someone tried to gadget'ify several things that did not belong there in the first place).

There's nothing wrong per se with gadgets in it's current form, certainly not from a user facing perspective. Why on earth you'd want to migrate away from it to something with far less flexibility is beyond me.