Template talk:Extension

Notheme

@TheDJ: Unfortunately adding notheme introduced some glitches (apart from which it looks good): in Template:Extension#Usage, the red link and the error text (invalid) are too dark red, and the brackets of the [toggle] buttons are black instead of white. Am I right in assuming that these glitches will go away if, as proposed in the edit summary, the overrides are removed at the site level? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to look into it. The collapsible is actually interesting. It seems to fallback to UA styling, which has explicit color:black for buttons it seems. That might have to be fixed in core. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Setting the buttons to color:var(--color-base,#202122) would be a good idea in general for consistency with other colors and across browsers; but it wouldn’t help in our case, as --color-base is overridden in .notheme to #202122 regardless of the theme. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Prefix

It seems that the "Parameters" section of this template ignores the configuration prefix setting from extension.json. Alexander Mashin ^talk 04:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Extension adding rights not categorized

The Extension:DeletePagesForGood page states that the extension adds rights, but it is not categorized under Category:Extensions which add rights. Shirayuki (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Changing cat() to tcat()

What are peoples' thoughts of changing the three uses of cat() in Module:Extension (currently used for the categories 'Extensions with manual MediaWiki version', 'Extensions without MediaWiki version' & 'Extensions not in ExtensionJson') to tcat() -- does anyone have any objections? I'm hoping that something like this would make it easier to look/work through those maintenance categories, as it'd deduplicate the multiple listings that currently exist within them for a number of extensions (by moving the translated pages to categories for their languages).

Pinging @P858snake as you tried something like this previously in Special:Diff/6801741 but self-reverted the edit an hour later, & @Samwilson as it looks like you added those categories in 2021. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@A smart kitten: Yes, that looks like it'd be fine, I think. I can't remember why we ended up with two categorising functions. Sam Wilson 01:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Boldly Done in Special:Diff/7743936. Let's hope nothing breaks :D ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Great! I guess the cat() function can be deleted now? Or in a while when no one's noticed anything broken. Sam Wilson 03:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe - given that tcat() calls cat() itself, I guess it depends on whether it's better to move cat()'s logic into tcat() or to keep it separate. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

False positives

This template erroneously puts some extensions that are present in the non-WMF repository into the Category:Extensions not in ExtensionJson. The reason, I presume, are the spaces in the extensions' names. Examples inlude extensions with names starting with Semantic .
Alexander Mashin ^talk 10:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support for commercial extensions

The |license= parameter is documented as supporting only licenses in the SPDX License List, which leaves out extensions such as Extension:AI-Assistant that are strictly commercial and not (yet) supported by that list. Is it acceptable to add support for |license=commercial in the template as a catchall for paid extensions so that they can be categorized as such? Tactica (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the official spdx way is LicenseRef-Proprietary Bawolff (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like SPDX doesn't have a formal classification or recommended method (at the moment?) https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2836 https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec/issues/49 P858snake (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That's what I meant. AIUI LicenseRef-Proprietary is intended for JSON; it's not part of the license list. Also, I understand *they* have to be careful with identifiers but I'm not sure this is that much important here, I mean if we go ahead with |license=commercial everyone will understand what that means. I just need to know if that's OK with you before I go and do it. Besides, if they end up adding that or a similar identifier to the list later on we can still support it as an alias if their meanings align. In fact I'm changing my proposal from |license=commercial to |license=proprietary as that sounds better and should serve well all the non-free extensions here. Tactica (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Extra newline

This template seems to be inserting an extra newline at the top of Extension:Popups. I tried fiddling with the code, but I couldn't get "Preview page with this template" to work (dunno why). Could someone take a look? LMK if I'm mistaken. — W.andrea (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be a recent(ish) edit to the template as it appears on other extension pages, pinging @Pppery and @Tactica as recent editors. P858snake (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is most likely my fault. I intend to add support for multiple licenses RSN and I'll try to fix this in the process if nobody beats me to it :) Tactica (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like my job is done :) Tactica (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)