==Link count seems odd== It seems to me to be beneficial for the Wantedpages report, to exclude user pages, and when generating rankings, to exclude links from user and talk pages. For example, The Gilded Palace of Sin has Special:Whatlinkshere/The Gilded Palace of Sin, but almost all are from the Talk pages of other albums. :True, true, BUT what if someone says "I noticed you added (data here), but should it be put into a new //different page, article name here?" or something like that? Then that linking and request is lost and no-one can fill it unless they happen across the originating talk page. Certainly User pages themselves can be excluded, but in some cases the Talks shouldn't be. Or, at least, that's my POV! User:Master Thief Garrett 01:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Similarly, nonexistent links from link-farm templates should be ignored (or, preferably, link-farm templates should be discouraged by official policy). The top 500 as of this date is overrun by half-completed obsessive-compulsive surveys of railway locomotive models and individual naval vessels, and the link counts of missing pages are being completely driven by their presense in such should-be-a-category-page templates instead of by any links in the article bodies. User:Jonrock 07:37, 2005 May 24 (UTC) **After further research, I see that navigational templates are here to stay, so I withdraw the ranty portion of the above, but I would still like the link count generated by a link in a template to be "1" rather than "number of pages the template appears in". User:Jonrock 07:49, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ==RSS feeds of users' watchlists== Pardon me if this request doesn't belong here (and could you tell me where I should write it up?), but I love the RSS feeds in the left-nav toolbox wherever they occur -- and one place they'd be especially fantastic would be for one's watchlist. Obviously this is a development project, so I'd like to suggest it. == With you on the user pages == The majority of the "biggies" seem to be user's linked in via article history. For instance, the Angella (troll) pages account for something like 1300 links. When I follow one there's no link on the page itself, so I assume it's in the history. Time for a little SQLing it seems. User:Maury Markowitz 12:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Why don't we just redirect them all to one page that says something like "This is a user who has deleted their account," or something like that? Would that be "against the rules" in any way? --User:Wolf530 03:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) I think Wantedpages should show us pages which are wanted. Talk pages (unlike articles) are only wanted if someone has something to say. User pages are only wanted if the user has something to say about themselves. Both problems are self correcting. Hence User:, User talk: and Talk: pages should be exluded from the list altogether. That's half the list right there. A quick review of the other entries, suggests that most of the items in the top spots are there because they are linked from people's signatures in Talk pages (usually one person), which is not a measure of demand, or linked from wikiproject boilerplate templates in the talk pages. That's fine, but just because one wikiproject choses to put boilerplate links in all the talk pages, and another does not, does not mean that the linked-to pages are in more demand. For example, Formula One Management got most of it's links from boilerplate on talk pages of other formula one pages, like this Talk:Enzo_Ferrari. Presumably the wikiproject will take care of open tasks which they have noted, so Wantedpages does not need them. Likewise, if someone has set up a signature which links to "The Gilded Palace of Sin", links will appear in the talk pages wherever that user goes, but this does not mean that the page is in high demand, and is not useful information. At the least, we should cap the number of links from talk pages which "count". That's what I think, anyway. User:Ben@liddicott.com 11:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) :It seems to me that the measure of an article's "wantedness" should be how many links there are to it in the main namespace, not on talk pages, user pages, etc. The article "AIDS kills fags dead", for example, shows up as having 30-something Special:Whatlinkshere/AIDS kills fags dead, but ''none'' of them are from actual articles. Hardly a most wanted. :Also, why aren't they listed in reverse order, with the ones with the most links first? User:GTBacchus 19:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Reverse Order??? == Someone mentioned it before, and I came here thinking the exact same thing. Why are the links in reverse order? Surely the pages with the most links should be shown first? User:Brendanfox 11:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Ditto. User:Constafrequent (User talk:Constafrequent) 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Just swooned in == Looks like a good den for failed linkspam ^_^ --User:BesigedB (User_talk:BesigedB) 23:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, I know what you're saying. There has to be a way to prevent that. -- User:Jtalledo 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Filter == Would it be feasable to develop a filter whereby unwanted reds could be hidden? --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 17:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Weird spam == Why are things like Votes for Willys on this page with thousands of alleged links to them even though some (probably all) of the pages mentioned as linking to them ''don't contain the links''??? User:Nickptar 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :That's what I'm coming here about. What's the deal? A lot of these seem to have no part in the "what links here" pages. ::My best guess is that an admin did a DB level delete, and didn't clean up the cruft from the `brokenlinks` table at the same time. IMHO this should be deleted ASAP as it's just giving the vandals publicity. User:Stoive 01:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::As far as I can tell, every time any of those pages is "edited", it re-fixes the links. Humble users could fix it by clicking on each of the many referenced pages in turn and doing some (any) edit. Doubtless admins have some shorter less spammy method they could use. I just fixed some unrelated wikification on Talk:Peppered moth, and sure enough it disappeared from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Votes_for_Willys Presumably it will shortly cause the count on Special:Wantedpages to decrement shortly. -- User:Stoive 01:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::* what is wrong with blank articles at the vandal pages so wantedpages functions correctly? == Update frequency? == How often is this list regenerated? I just updated most of the EMD locomotive articles to use smaller navigation templates, which should have reduced the frequency that the red links within them appear on this list. For example,EMD GP50 appears at number 62 in the list with 103 links, but looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=EMD_GP50 What links here] shows only 25 links. Is this list generated once a day or more frequently? AdThanksVance. User:Slambo 15:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Special:Wantedpages:
Special:Wantedpages
Special:Wantedpages
==Link count seems odd== It seems to me to be beneficial for the Wantedpages report, to exclude user pages, and when generating rankings, to exclude links from user and talk pages. For example, The Gilded Palace of Sin has Special:Whatlinkshere/The Gilded Palace of Sin, but almost all are from the Talk pages of other albums. :True, true, BUT what if someone says "I noticed you added (data here), but should it be put into a new //different page, article name here?" or something like that? Then that linking and request is lost and no-one can fill it unless they happen across the originating talk page. Certainly User pages themselves can be excluded, but in some cases the Talks shouldn't be. Or, at least, that's my POV! User:Master Thief Garrett 01:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Similarly, nonexistent links from link-farm templates should be ignored (or, preferably, link-farm templates should be discouraged by official policy). The top 500 as of this date is overrun by half-completed obsessive-compulsive surveys of railway locomotive models and individual naval vessels, and the link counts of missing pages are being completely driven by their presense in such should-be-a-category-page templates instead of by any links in the article bodies. User:Jonrock 07:37, 2005 May 24 (UTC) **After further research, I see that navigational templates are here to stay, so I withdraw the ranty portion of the above, but I would still like the link count generated by a link in a template to be "1" rather than "number of pages the template appears in". User:Jonrock 07:49, 2005 May 24 (UTC) ==RSS feeds of users' watchlists== Pardon me if this request doesn't belong here (and could you tell me where I should write it up?), but I love the RSS feeds in the left-nav toolbox wherever they occur -- and one place they'd be especially fantastic would be for one's watchlist. Obviously this is a development project, so I'd like to suggest it. == With you on the user pages == The majority of the "biggies" seem to be user's linked in via article history. For instance, the Angella (troll) pages account for something like 1300 links. When I follow one there's no link on the page itself, so I assume it's in the history. Time for a little SQLing it seems. User:Maury Markowitz 12:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) : Why don't we just redirect them all to one page that says something like "This is a user who has deleted their account," or something like that? Would that be "against the rules" in any way? --User:Wolf530 03:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) I think Wantedpages should show us pages which are wanted. Talk pages (unlike articles) are only wanted if someone has something to say. User pages are only wanted if the user has something to say about themselves. Both problems are self correcting. Hence User:, User talk: and Talk: pages should be exluded from the list altogether. That's half the list right there. A quick review of the other entries, suggests that most of the items in the top spots are there because they are linked from people's signatures in Talk pages (usually one person), which is not a measure of demand, or linked from wikiproject boilerplate templates in the talk pages. That's fine, but just because one wikiproject choses to put boilerplate links in all the talk pages, and another does not, does not mean that the linked-to pages are in more demand. For example, Formula One Management got most of it's links from boilerplate on talk pages of other formula one pages, like this Talk:Enzo_Ferrari. Presumably the wikiproject will take care of open tasks which they have noted, so Wantedpages does not need them. Likewise, if someone has set up a signature which links to "The Gilded Palace of Sin", links will appear in the talk pages wherever that user goes, but this does not mean that the page is in high demand, and is not useful information. At the least, we should cap the number of links from talk pages which "count". That's what I think, anyway. User:Ben@liddicott.com 11:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) :It seems to me that the measure of an article's "wantedness" should be how many links there are to it in the main namespace, not on talk pages, user pages, etc. The article "AIDS kills fags dead", for example, shows up as having 30-something Special:Whatlinkshere/AIDS kills fags dead, but ''none'' of them are from actual articles. Hardly a most wanted. :Also, why aren't they listed in reverse order, with the ones with the most links first? User:GTBacchus 19:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Reverse Order??? == Someone mentioned it before, and I came here thinking the exact same thing. Why are the links in reverse order? Surely the pages with the most links should be shown first? User:Brendanfox 11:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Ditto. User:Constafrequent (User talk:Constafrequent) 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Just swooned in == Looks like a good den for failed linkspam ^_^ --User:BesigedB (User_talk:BesigedB) 23:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, I know what you're saying. There has to be a way to prevent that. -- User:Jtalledo 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Filter == Would it be feasable to develop a filter whereby unwanted reds could be hidden? --User:OldakQuill User_talk:OldakQuill 17:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Weird spam == Why are things like Votes for Willys on this page with thousands of alleged links to them even though some (probably all) of the pages mentioned as linking to them ''don't contain the links''??? User:Nickptar 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :That's what I'm coming here about. What's the deal? A lot of these seem to have no part in the "what links here" pages. ::My best guess is that an admin did a DB level delete, and didn't clean up the cruft from the `brokenlinks` table at the same time. IMHO this should be deleted ASAP as it's just giving the vandals publicity. User:Stoive 01:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::As far as I can tell, every time any of those pages is "edited", it re-fixes the links. Humble users could fix it by clicking on each of the many referenced pages in turn and doing some (any) edit. Doubtless admins have some shorter less spammy method they could use. I just fixed some unrelated wikification on Talk:Peppered moth, and sure enough it disappeared from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Votes_for_Willys Presumably it will shortly cause the count on Special:Wantedpages to decrement shortly. -- User:Stoive 01:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC) ::* what is wrong with blank articles at the vandal pages so wantedpages functions correctly? == Update frequency? == How often is this list regenerated? I just updated most of the EMD locomotive articles to use smaller navigation templates, which should have reduced the frequency that the red links within them appear on this list. For example,
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Special:Wantedpages:
Special:Wantedpages
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
