Last modified: 2010-05-15 15:32:55 UTC
See [[meta:Help:Section#Section_linking_bugzilla_917]] (a extra anchor at [[meta:Help:Section#Section_linking]]). If "http:" is included in the anchor no internal link will be generated. Another extra anchor to a similar example is available at [[en:User_talk:IMSoP#bugzilla_917]]. Regards Reinhardt
Added by Leonard G.: Troubleshooting info. If you this is in a redirect and you click on the redirect info at the top of the destination page to get to the redirect page, then click on the link there, it will go to the correct subsection. Example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Style, a redirect to a section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_mission ~~~~
(In reply to comment #1) > Added by Leonard G.: Troubleshooting info. If you this is in a redirect [...] Redirects to sections don't work, and probably never will. I see no external links there, so that's a completely unrelated issue.
A bit of testing shows that, under 1.4.1: * links to a heading containing an external link now work as expected if you copy the escaped form from the link in the TOC (e.g. [[#foo.A0.28http:.2F.2Fexample.com.2Ffoo.29]]). It's not pretty, but it works. * typing the link as it *appears* in the TOC still breaks (for some reason, the space becomes ".A0" in the anchor, but "_" in the link; more importantly, the URL part gets parsed as an external link). This is relatively minor, since at least you *can* link to the heading; the ".A0" thing's weird though. * a heading with just a bare URL at the beginning breaks all attempts to link to it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:IMSoP/sandbox&oldid=11960099 for an example). This is more of a problem - although easily worked around by just not using a bare URL as a heading! The key difference is that "#http://example.com" on its own would be a valid link (whereas "#foohttp://example.com" wouldn't); the change from "//" into ".2F.2F" should make that irrelevant, but the parser currently counts links like "http:example.com" as valid (which, strictly, it shouldn't - see bug 787)
This was fixed at some point.
