Template talk:Image-quality

Link Change
I found a way to duplicate the link that is associated with Upload a new version of this file. Change: to
 * (link is Special:Upload if put into File:Glide64 2.png)
 * (link is specialized if put into File:Glide64 2.png)

Should this change be implemented? You can see this in action for User:Wildgoosespeeder/Tweak/sandbox being transcluded in File:Glide64 2.png -- 04:11, 13 February 2016 (EST)
 * Looks good to me but more input would be needed before making the change. -- 10:29, 13 February 2016 (EST)
 * Good idea to make it link directly to uploading the file in question, bu as for the coding itself, make it:
 * The bold starts before the link so the 's are unnecessary, the colour template's a bit simpler than needing a second span, and it doesn't matter if the link's dysfunctional on the template page itself, so long as it works for other pages, which it should, as far as I can tell. The only potential problems are when apostrophes, ampersands or other characters are used in the file names; I switched the magic word to PAGENAMEE, since I think percent-encoding special characters will work better, but I'm not 100% sure: I haven't tested it by reuploading anything, just previewing and going to the upload pages, with less than perfect results even then (for either magic word). - 13:19, 13 February 2016 (EST)
 * I looked up documentation and I can go even shorter and drop  in favor of  . The markup produces identical output. There shouldn't be problem(s) with the encoded output version of the magic word. I would just replace:
 * with
 * -- 15:36, 13 February 2016 (EST)
 * Yeah, that link definitely looks good. But again, ditch the unnecessary includeonly/noinclude stuff:
 * - 16:00, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * Actually, I have a new set of logic that needs to be in place so that way the special link only appears on file pages:
 * Trust me, this needs to be there for error correction purposes. -- 16:27, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * Honestly, it really doesn't matter if it breaks when transposed onto non-file pages, or when it's sitting here untransposed: it's not supposed to be there, would be a useless link anyway even if functional, still displays perfectly fine, and is not worth fixing. We should just go with the simple thing I posted and be done with it. - 17:10, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * For regular and experienced MediaWiki users here, you are right, because we know what we are doing generally, but for newcomers, this could throw them off if the template gives them an error link. I'll implement your approval, but I think the error correction code should be in place instead. -- 17:17, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * Actually, I have a new set of logic that needs to be in place so that way the special link only appears on file pages:
 * Trust me, this needs to be there for error correction purposes. -- 16:27, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * Honestly, it really doesn't matter if it breaks when transposed onto non-file pages, or when it's sitting here untransposed: it's not supposed to be there, would be a useless link anyway even if functional, still displays perfectly fine, and is not worth fixing. We should just go with the simple thing I posted and be done with it. - 17:10, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * For regular and experienced MediaWiki users here, you are right, because we know what we are doing generally, but for newcomers, this could throw them off if the template gives them an error link. I'll implement your approval, but I think the error correction code should be in place instead. -- 17:17, 14 February 2016 (EST)
 * For regular and experienced MediaWiki users here, you are right, because we know what we are doing generally, but for newcomers, this could throw them off if the template gives them an error link. I'll implement your approval, but I think the error correction code should be in place instead. -- 17:17, 14 February 2016 (EST)