Last modified: 2013-11-14 14:32:56 UTC
Templates in user js/css files are listed as being transcluded, though they actually aren't. Therefore, they shouldn't be listed. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alpta/monobook.js for example - Template:Flickrreview is listed as being transcluded in this page, though it isn't really.
Also, categories.
Thanks to Splarka for the suggested & more accurate summary.
Actually, on second thought, some people do intentionally use links for tracking with whatlinkshere. So maybe just suppress transclusion?
(In reply to comment #3) > Actually, on second thought, some people do intentionally use links for > tracking with whatlinkshere. So maybe just suppress transclusion? > If it's not a link, its not a link.
Though, do note that some of us like to use an extra include or whatnot, to actually enable &templates=expand inside of the action=raw for their css/js pages. Templates are a real interesting method of making it possible to cleanly separate your code, yet not require inclusion of a large number of files into the page slowing down loading.
That sh(In reply to comment #5) > Though, do note that some of us like to use an extra include or whatnot, to > actually enable &templates=expand inside of the action=raw for their css/js > pages. > This shouldn't actually affect whether &templates=expand work or not (and if it does, it shouldn't). This is just a bug indicating which parse method should be used for the purposes of registering page information, such as links/templates/categories/images. This in a way is similar to the debate over bug 14404 -- a proposed solution is that int: should parse the page in content language for the purposes of links, and in user language for viewing.(In reply to comment #3) > Actually, on second thought, some people do intentionally use links for > tracking with whatlinkshere. So maybe just suppress transclusion? I find the new search quite good at this actually (but that is a bit of a Wikimedia-centric view).
As far as I can see this behavior was changed with the introduction of ContentHandler. JS/CSS pages are no longer wikitext, so they are no longer parsed at all.
Reopening, this doesn't actually seem fixed. I'm not sure where I got that impression. E.g. this page[1] is listed in this category[2]. [1] https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Blackfish/en2pl.js [2] https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Miasta_w_hrabstwie_$1
That seems done on purpose.
That doesn't make this behavior not wrong by itself. While I see that this bug has actually become a feature and some people e.g use the backlinks to track script usage, this is highly unreliable and would be better accomplished by scanning the database dump. I vaguely remember some discussion about this behavior when ContentHandler was being introduced, but I have no idea where it took place and what was the outcome.
