Mysteriously, wikipedia-l itself wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
<What links here> no longer indicates what links through redirects. I think that this is a significant loss of function.
I need to be convinced that this is the right thing to do. The redirect pages themselves /are/ listed, and you can likewise see a list of what links to them. If the function automagically skipped over redirects to list two-level links mixed with one- level links, the list would be a bad picture of the real state of the database. Maybe it could list them separately (i.e., just do a second lookup for every link page found that is a redirect). That's not a bad idea.
Indeed, that's exactly what the old version currently does. But your new new system is even better.
The watchlist no longer watches User: pages or Wikipedia: pages. It's bad enough that User talk: and Wikipedia talk: weren't watched; now it's worse.
I don't know what you're talking about here. You can add any page from any namespace to your watchlist, and it will work just fine. In addition, if you watch an encyclopedia page, it will automatically add the corresponding talk page to the watch.
I've figured out what's going on. In the old version, if I watched any page of the form, say, [[*:Wesley]], then this put [[Wesley]], [[Talk:Wesley]], and [[User:Wesley]] (but not [[User talk:Wesley]], even if that's the page I watched) in my watchlist, all as part of watching for [[Wesley]]. In the new system, OTOH, [[Wesley]] and [[Talk:Wesely]] are one thing, while [[User:Wesley]] and [[User talk:Wesley]] are completely different. When you converted the database to your new system, you kept [[Wesley]] on my watchlist, but not [[User:Wesley]]. The only error, then, is in the conversion process. All the [[User:]] and [[Wikipedia:]] articles were dropped from my watchlist (because they were never there in the first place, only the [[:]] versions).
That's a reasonable thing. Please add it as a feature request to Sourceforge so it won't get lost.
Yeah, I didn't see how to do this Sourceforge stuff right away, which is why I posted all of my comments to the mailing list. Don't worry, I get it now; what you haven't implemented already will be there shortly.
It was previously the exact red color of followed links, and I made it a darker red so it wouldn't conflict. If your followed links are purple, that's a personal browser setting. Most browsers use red.
Really? I've never seen this. All of my graphical browsers use purple (by default, that is -- they're all adjustable). Anyway, if the colours used to conflict and don't know, then I'll gladly live with *similar* colours to keep others from seeing *identical* colours. Maybe even modernise my browsers' settings ^_^.
-- Toby Bartels toby@math.ucr.edu
PS: Any idea why I stopped receiving this mailing list around July 2? I've been reading it in the archives since then. Does this happen by chance sometimes and I just need to resubscribe?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org