Colors look abnormal to me after recent edits to Common.css. Can it be changed so as to not affect light-mode users?

The template color scheme shows me this

<includeonly>
{{#invoke:color scheme|main}}
</includeonly>
<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

So how am I able to find the template's content?

I was about to put 1 template in a page but when I save it, it becomes 2 template (the same template)

Does anyone know whether it was intentional, and if so what's the reasoning?

Recently DemoScripts stopped functioning to me in most cases, while normal JS works fine. It looks like there are race conditions between the module that defines the importArticles() function and the module that load the gadgets, so the console is filled with ReferenceError: importArticle is not defined

Uh the wiki logo kinda blends in with the header color. So… it’s kind of hard to see. Can dev wiki change the background maybe so it’s better?

I finally got around to fixing and finishing some things with UserLastActivity. I want to update the documentation page but there is a bit of a hiccup. The updates would change a substantial part of the documentation and there is already a Spanish translation of the page. This wouldn't be a problem if I had left things as they were but I also decided to parameterize (following KockaAdmiralac's example with ViewNotificationsUsers) the documentation page to make future translations easier.

The issue here is that, when I make the changes to the English page, I won't be able to translate and update the Spanish page since I don't know Spanish. I tried looking around and there doesn't seem to be any way to use an old version of a page when transcluding content. Any ideas? Perhaps I should revert the Spanish page to before the parameterization?

From what I've read about how gadgets works, I believe you can use an importArticles block and @import statement to import JS and CSS files from the dev or any other wiki, similar to how you would on a global/personal page?

However, as they would still be used on custom JS pages I know that they would still need to go through the review process.

Also I want to confirm as I've only seen this implicitly implies when reading help articles, that scripts/CSS that are marked for personal use can be created as a gadget as long as they are not set to default on (for the obvious reason)?

While leaving it as the default white may have been fine on the Oasis skin, due to the new default background on UCX having graphics on them, it can make it nearly indistinguishable to tell if I am on the Dev or CC wiki without having to specifically look at the name in the top left, as even the logo is very similar.

I understand the point is likely to remain similar to CC due to it's shared purpose, however I think there still needs to be some kind of visual distinction between the two even if only slight (such as keeping the same colour scheme but replacing the graphic/texture), so I don't get completely confused which wiki I am looking at.

Everybody's names are showing up as periods, and it isn't just me. (No idea what this goes in.)

UCP status is there, but probably needs FandomDesktop status.

Is there a way to filter by out new comments only in the social activity rather than both new comments and replies?

I am referring to api.php which is also usable via mw.Api. Is there a page for these changes already? If not, should we create one? I have already noticed a few significant differences and I think it might be helpful to users to have them conveniently documented rather then them having to figure it out by themselves. This especially so now that there won't be many (if any) legacy wikis to compare to in order to determine what might give analogous results.

Also, why are there so many duplicate categories in this Discussions and which ones are we supposed to post to?

I made a bookmarklet, is there a specific page it should go on, or can it have it's own page in the main namespace?

So I added UCP compatibility to MessageWallUserTags, but I can't seem to get the infobox to show it. I looked at other UCP compatible pages and didn't see anything that shows it is UCP compatible in the source. Does it have to be marked by staff? The UCP page also doesn't give that much information about marking scripts.

Any plans for custom namespace for the features like:

• Tool: | Tool talk:

• Javascript: | Javascript talk: (or something like that)

• Etcetera: | Etcetera talk:

In this thread, we were trying to figure out why PurgeButton is listed as "personal use only". Does anyone know the answer? NullEditButton and WhatLinksHere are not listed as "personal use only". Is there something different between them that justifies this difference in treatment?

Also, why are there duplicate Discussions categories?