Regarding the screenshot above from @Pginer-WMF: First off, no notification we specified has three secondary links. So that is partly why this particular notification looks so crowded. Which means the narrow question here is, which of these secondary links doesn't belong? This looks to be a non-Flow Mention, because it includes the link to the Diff and has the name of the page in the message language. Given that, there should be no secondary link to the page name. So the solution in this particular case is to eliminate the middle link.

More broadly, what about Pau's suggestion of differentiating the namespace with an icon, which becomes an issue in flow-mentions? A bit of background: thinking, I believe, that it would be more elegant, we did the following for flow-mention: we took the page name out of the message and put it in the secondary link. (Also, we can't link to the Diff for flow, so we had a secondary link slot empty.) I think flow-mention is working properly as just described.

Now, is it better to clean up the message by using an icon instead of the namespace? I think others might need to debate the importance of knowing the namespace before you click the link. The link will take you where you need to go, but I think we can hypothesize that some users will grasp the icon's meaning before they click and others won't.

OR, we can avoid that issue entirely, since an alternative solution that might be simpler is available: the primary link here goes to the same place more or less as the secondary link. The value of the secondary link is mostly informational--to provide the pagename. So one could simply put the pagename BACK in the message--where it is in non-flow Mentions--and drop the secondary link to the page name, avoiding the issue. Thoughts?

The namespace handling in the secondary links is in agreement with what we decided.

We could:

1. Drop talk page name secondary links for wikitext mention per your first suggestion.
2. Revisit the spec I linked above and drop the namespace from secondary link.
3. Move 'View changes' to a 'prioritized' => false secondary link. Meaning varies by formatter, but for popup, it is only in ... menu, rather than visible by default. This is probably fine for shorter sections (you can see at a glance where the new post/conversation was), but for longer ones the diff is useful (since we can't link to an individual wikitext post, only to a section or diff).

So I agree with you #1 is best, but #3 is another possibility.

There are several aspects combined in that specific notification:

• Related to how to deal with more than two actions (when/if needed), I created T125949.
• The present ticket was about extending our previous agreement to give to "user_talk" a similar treatment to the one we give to "user" and "talk", since it is conceptually closely related.
• I'm also in favor of shortening the text copy and keep the page name as a secondary action to give the additional context. This probably requires a separate ticket (and review of the spreadsheet)