MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DisambiguationLinks.css

Interface-protected edit request on 20 April 2019
Since the purpose of this CSS is to point out the erroneous links in mainspace that should be fixed (per WP:INTDABLINK), I'd like to suggest (i) limiting it to mainspace only (dab links in other namespaces, such as Talk, Help, and WP, are usually intentional, and not a problem anyway) and (ii) excluding the hatnotes (primary and perfectly valid usage of dab links). Thus we'll highlight only those links that really need fixing, and avoid the unnecessary distraction by false positives.The code will look like this:, i.e. prepending   to the existing code.I have already tested it in my common.css, seems to work as intended. — Mike Novikoff 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * any objections? — xaosflux  Talk 14:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not Kaldari, but I object - I use this to highlight all disambiguation links, and suddenly limiting it to only mainspace and non-hatnote links would just lead me to add the old css to my own common.css. But, if I didn't know about the change, I would be very confused about why all of the disambiguation links weren't orange anymore. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What DannyS712 says. Object change. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So we need to know whether it's a beautifier (with the implication that orange hatnotes are beautiful) or a linter (meant to find and correct the wrong links). I've always thought of it as the latter, and in fact I am taking the concept from this version. — Mike Novikoff 19:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've turned the request off while this gets discussed or at least until there's a consensus, although this page is unlikely to see much traffic either way. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also not enthusiastic about the proposed change. If we implemented it, I imagine the first thing that would happen is that someone would complain that it only works in the main namespace or it doesn't work in hatnotes. I don't see this feature as a linter. I see it simply as providing information about what is being linked to. It seems better to me to have it work consistently in all contexts so that there isn't any confusion. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean. So be it, if that was your original intent and people got used to it ever since.What made me think of linters is a very bright color that "sticks out like a sore thumb", much like in . If I had my way (and in my personal common.css I do), I'd either choose a calmer color or limit the usage area. I guess I'll keep on using my current version since I often do a cleanup in articles and it will be helpful for me. And I personally don't think there's much point in emphasizing the simple fact that dab hatnotes are what they are. But of course it's up to everyone to decide what suits them best. — Mike Novikoff 16:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
First, color: #ff8921; be replaced to color: #ff8921!important;. This provides compatibility with User:MJL/NeverRecolorLinks for the same reasons outlined here.

Second, on MediaWiki:Gadget-DisambiguationLinks replace orange with a link to MediaWiki:Gadget-DisambiguationLinks or something. People gotta know what color orange we're talking about. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * link orange to itself? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The effect would be that Special:Preferences displays a link to the docs page. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really in favor of putting !important's in a site wide gadget just because someone's personal user script might like it - can you expand on this need? — xaosflux  Talk 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure! To put it into context, according to Special:GadgetUsage, this gadget has been used by 4,169 editors. This change would not affect anything on their end as (I tested it on Madison, Wisconsin and Madison (disambiguation). MediaWiki:Gadget-DisambiguationLinks currently already overrides  when displaying. Adding the important could only benefit myself as far as I am aware and not break anything else. Wait, let me test it with again. Okay, yeah. I did it at Narwhal (disambiguation) with Narval (disambiguation). It also made it compatible with User:BrandonXLF/GreenRedirects [because currently Narval (disamb.) shows up green].  changed  in order to make it compatible with my own, but that lost its compatibility with this gadget. I'm thinking of combining the two as I did at Special:Diff/900442450, but that is still in the design phase. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a site-wide gadget, and a beautifully simple one at that. We don't know how active those 4,200 users are, or what else they are doing with CSS.  Even ignoring that, adding the important could only benefit myself as far as I am aware is a really good reason not to make this change.  No comment on the linking of orange to orange. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 21:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MJL/NeverRecolorLinks appears to be used by no one other than you, so making any changes to sitewide CSS to support it is vastly out of proportion. User:BrandonXLF/GreenRedirects is irrelevant here, as there is no obvious reason to expect links to redirects to disambiguation pages to show up in orange as opposed to green when both scripts are used. And I likewise don't see any significant benefit to adding the link; it points to a page that contains no information beyond what is already shown on the page containing the link. This change should not be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with the benefit of hindsight here, this was pretty was downright terrible edit request. I'm adding it to the Wall of Shame. I comment here to warn future users against making one in the future barring some unforeseen change in Wikipedia's common.css. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Change the disambiguation link color
Recently I was reminded I could make links to disambiguation pages appear orange. However, at least for me, the shade of orange was too light. I imagine this is a problem for others too. Can a darker shade of orange be chosen?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the color from #ff8921 to #f17600? That should make it a little darker and easier to read. Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal at Village pump
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Make links to disambiguation pages orange by default. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)