MediaWiki talk:Linkshere

message: Show the "Transclusion count" link for subpages of User:UBX (which are de facto templates - userboxes).
Updated code is in User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox3. I can't test it, so can't be sure it works. Basically just adds: | explanation: adds userspace 2 to accepted list if the rootpagename is UBX, otherwise uses '999' as a random invalid namespace (not 100% sure that part is required, verses an empty string). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd prefer to just rip out all of that logic and show the transclusion count for all pages, since anything can be transcluded. Any objections to that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine to me. Seen a few cases where even articles are transcluded (eg 2020–21 Premier League), so seems reasonable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jack! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 September 2020 

message: I have undone this change, as I feel there should be some measure of discussion before making such a dramatic (and visually garish) change. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD is fine of course, when you speak of the "dramatic" change, are you referring to the external content?  The change in here on enwiki should have been extremely minor. — xaosflux Talk 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do realize the change here was relatively minor, and was referring to the result of that change. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, was making sure something didn't go crazy that I missed on our own interface! — xaosflux Talk 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  What do you think was "visually garish"? This new link is many times better than the old and moreover clearly uses styling consistent to OOUI. --Izno (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should have said "visually jarring" instead of "garish", as I was expecting this with its nice background and relatively small text, and instead was hit with this, which contains huge boxes and twice as much information, some of which seems relatively useless to me unless I can see where those non-direct transclusions are coming from. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you had standard UX change whiplash. Got it. Izno (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good way to put it. As I alluded to earlier I'm okay with a consensus determining this is an okay change, but I want there to be a consensus (i.e. BRD at its finest). Primefac (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Done Primefac (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-revert discussion

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Switch to BrandonXLF's link count tool and remove Jarry1250's tool from Special:WhatLinksHere.  🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Switch to BrandonXLF's link count tool and remove Jarry1250's tool from Special:WhatLinksHere|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;Switch to BrandonXLF's link count tool and remove Jarry1250's tool from Special:WhatLinksHere]]

message: After this edit, there is an unwanted space between the open parenthesis and the word "link". I think it could be fixed by moving the open parenthesis to just before the opening bracket in the first link: * ([ Pinging .~ – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray whitespace after latest edit