Last modified: 2006-10-04 17:29:27 UTC
It's fairly common knowledge that a wikilink such as [[Cricket (insect)|]] will produce a
link that points to [[Cricket (insect)]] but displays as "Cricket". Such notational
shorthand is of even greater usefulness when dealing with titles that are longer and/or
more difficult to type/spell. I suggest the following improvements:
1. Keep this functionality, but refrain from actually expanding the second half of the
link. This will reduce the resulting byte count when dealing with particularly long
titles, and make the affected paragraphs easier to edit (or even comprehend when reading
them from the editing box). For example, [[Six Degrees of Separation (film)|]] should
link and display in the rendered page output the same way it does now, but retain the
same brevity in the saved wikitext, rather than expanding to [[Six Degrees of Separation
(film)|Six Degrees of Separation]].
2. Expand the functionality of the pipe trick to accommodate comma-separated ordered
pairs. For example, I'd like to be able to type [[Providence, Rhode Island|]] or [[Diana,
Princess of Wales|]], and produce links with the displayed text "Providence" or "Diana"
just as it would if the actual target pages were "Providence (Rhode Island)" and "Diana
(Princess of Wales)" rather than the generally accepted comma conventions for nobility
and postal locations.
3. Finally, I'd like to be able to use the pipe trick in edit summaries (and for block/
deletion/protection/pagemove reasons of course). Attempting to do so currently produces
non-clickable text. Again, this should occur in a non-bloating manner, so that it does
not count against the maximum byte count of edit comments.
I don't foresee any adverse effects with regard to backward compatability.
correction regarding item 3, in edit summaries, links are displayed as though the
pipe is not present in the link at all. Still could use fixing IMO.
1) I think that this is not going to change. This pipe trick exists only before
the save, and I think that the developers aren't going to change that
2) There is a bug opened for this exact thing, AFAIK
3) AFAIK, this is due to the fact that edit summaries, logs etc. don't get
parsed for the "pipe trick". IANAD, but this shouldn't be too hard to implement
4) It is advisable to use separate bug reports for separate issues.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6862 ***
Perhaps a case of wrong number -- I do not see how 6862 is related to this.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6826 ***