| HappyDog | |
| Aug 6 2006, 11:15 PM |
| F2943: 6934 | |
| Nov 21 2014, 9:17 PM |
It would be incredibly useful to have a 'What redirects here' function, similar
to the 'What links here' page.
I expect the most sensible and flexible way to implement this would be to modify
the what links here page to include a set of toggles at the top of the page
which show/hide direct links/redirects/inclusions individually, similar to the
way bots/minor edits/etc work on recent changes.
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | None | T8934 Allow separated inclusions, links, redirects on whatlinkshere | |||
| Declined | None | T3392 "What links here" should show only the template linking, not all pages containing the template. Same for "pages that use this image". |
ayg wrote:
Expanded the bug a bit. Allow the viewer to show any combination of links,
template-inclusions, redirects, and image/category-inclusions.
rotemliss wrote:
(In reply to comment #1)
Expanded the bug a bit. Allow the viewer to show any combination of links,
template-inclusions, redirects, and image/category-inclusions.
I support it, however please note that image/category inclusions seem to be
defined in the tables categorylinks and imagelinks, not in the pagelinks table
which seems to be used in Special:Whatlinkshere, and therefore are not displayed
in Special:Whatlinkshere at all, but under the image links header in the image
page, or in the category page.
robchur wrote:
explicit redirect links. Reliance upon the pagelinks table in combination with
page.page_is_redirect is not sufficient.
that's not the purpose of the page, and those relationships are presented elsewhere.
ayg wrote:
(In reply to comment #3)
- Category and image linkages shouldn't appear on "what links here" because
. . . those relationships are presented elsewhere.
Oh, right.
villadavida wrote:
Based on information already provided in Special:What links here, the ways in which
articles link is:
The inability to do this has made simplifying some of the "super" templates on
Wiktionary difficult to do because it's not clear where a template is directly used.
The original request would also help identify shortcut (redirect) names for templates,
since redirects are not categorized as the templates are.
Meta-comment: Note that categories can be thought of as an implementation of
Special:What links here via direct link.
Is it also possible to restrict Special:What links here by namespace? ~~~~
ahoerstemeier wrote:
Now suddenly links like [[:Image:Example.jpg]] are treated same as
[[Image:Example.jpg]] there needs to be a way to find only the second, otherwise
it will be impossible to use the WhatLinksHere page to find editing experiments.
ahoerstemeier wrote:
Can I delete my last comment? :-) It was a misunderstanding on my side, someone
"fixed" my links to check the image uses, and actually that one broke it.
jon513 wrote:
I have notice two different occasion where I needed this functionality and it
was lacking. The first was when it was found that "cheap" redirected to Jew I
wanted to see if there were any other inappropriate redirects. I was able to
find that the same had taken place for "Stingy" but it was very difficult to
sift though all the other links.
The second time was when disambiguating "egg". As a disambiguation page becomes
more used it becomes more vandalized (Redwolf24's law see [[WP:RAUL]] 19). Then
the whatlinkshere becomes full of links to warning to vandals, making it harder
to disambiguate; which in turns makes more vandals. It is becoming very hard to
see links to article as the vast majority of the links are from talk pages of
the wikipedia space.
(taken from bug 8986 and slightly modified)
It would be great to have:
ayg wrote:
Proposed patch, not fully functional
This patch appears to mostly work, but I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between pagelinks and templatelinks. On the dump of simple-wiki I downloaded, many of the templatelinks seem to be duplicated for no apparent reason in pagelinks, so inclusions secretly show up even if inclusions are disabled. Otherwise it seems to work pretty nicely, although I'm sure there are still flaws to be ironed out.
Attached:
ayg wrote:
Oh, one slight flaw as of now is that there are no actual checkboxes, you have to hack the URL to get them to work, but that's details. ;)