Last modified: 2012-11-04 18:27:37 UTC
URL http://jadesukka.homelinux.org:8180/mediawiki15c/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:TASKBODY/&limit=500&offset=0 see also http://jadesukka.homelinux.org:8180/betawiki/Image:Image_namespace_sort_order_in_image_links_01.jpg or Image links at [[commons:Image:Jigokudani hotspring in Nagano Japan 001.jpg]] The order in which the links are listed is probably "rcid". enhancement request(s): - minimal: as "magic watchlist" - enhanced: filters for namespaces, etc. Best regards Reinhardt
*** Bug 3780 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hallo! Exchanged url because Betawiki has moved. Bug 4588: Group pages by templates in list of file links on Image page suggests that the code from "special:Whatlinkshere" should be reused in the file links section in Image pages. It would be great to fix this before. Added Bug 4588 to the "blocks" list. [[special:Watchlist/edit]] is not using the same code but there pages are grouped by namespaces. Filtering by namespace is possible at Special:Contributions, Special:Allpages and Special:Recentchanges. A common code is planed at Bug 2468: The code that generates the namespace form for Special:Contributions, Special:Allpages and Special:Recentchanges should be merged See also: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2468 best regards reinhardt [[user:gangleri]]
updated url
With our current schema, it would be impossible to do this in any kind of efficient manner. I'm also inclined to question the utility of such a function, even if it were implemented.
*** Bug 9423 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
They are listed by page_id, which generally correlates with creation time, except for restorations. A namespace filter seems to have been added for some time.
Reopened: it is possible to sort by namespace, but _not_ alphabetically, thus reopening bug again, since bug 3780 also links here and also other filters had been requested, thanks.
One visits [[Substance abuse]] and checking [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Substance abuse]] one is convinced that [[Drug abuse]] does not link to [[Substance abuse]]... it seems alphabetically ordered, but that is just a coincidence for this page. If MediaWiki insists on not making these lists alphabetically ordered, then it should make it more obvious, so the user will remember to try the 500 button. And while you are at it, make Category lists etc. etc. also not alphabetically ordered, so the user doesn't get used to thinking that all lists on MediaWiki are alphabetically ordered.
(In reply to comment #8) > then it should make it more obvious E.g., have at the top of the list some mention of what the ordering is by, as there is no way the user could guess. That way the user would not get so despondent that there is apparently no logic.
*** Bug 23763 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
If the database can't produce results in alphabetical order, pump the results into a sortable table and let JavaScript do the work. Table sorting code is ten a penny. Here's some, MIT-licensed: http://yoast.com/articles/sortable-table/ (In reply to comment #4) > I'm also inclined to question the utility of such a function, > even if it were implemented. People work through lists in order while fixing things. It's very hard to know how far you are through a task when the list is in apparently* completely random order. * A normal user will have no idea what's going on inside the database or how it's ordering the results of this query.
(In reply to comment #11) > If the database can't produce results in alphabetical order, pump the results > into a sortable table and let JavaScript do the work. > > Table sorting code is ten a penny. Here's some, MIT-licensed: > http://yoast.com/articles/sortable-table/ MediaWiki already has JavaScript table sorting. The issue is that paginated results will make the sorting useless, isn't it?
(In reply to comment #12) > MediaWiki already has JavaScript table sorting. Ah. I had been under the misapprehension it was something template-based. Okay. > The issue is that paginated results will make the sorting useless, isn't it? Well, in many cases it's possible to see all the results of the query by bumping up the limit parameter, at which point sorting becomes valuable. It should be made clear that sorting applies only to the visible results. "The following 50 pages link to Example. Sorted in alphabetical order. [change sort direction] (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)"
