Author: rowan.collins
Description:
It has been mentioned in various places that the current practice of storing
template inclusions in the 'links' table is unhelpful at best. It is at least
partly the cause of all the bugs I've marked as depending on this one, and
perhaps of many more.
I note that there has also been a suggestion that rather than creating a new
'templatelinks' / '{trans|in}clusionlinks' table, we should actually *merge* the
various existing links tables ('imagelinks', 'categorylinks', etc) and mark them
with a 'linktype' field instead.
Either way, I just thought it would be useful to track what issues depend on
such a change.
Version: unspecified
Severity: normal