Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Changed summary from "Allow hyperlinks in edit summary/block log when it's to a Wikimedia page" to "Allow whitelisted external hyperlinks in edit summary/block log".

(In reply to comment #0)
> Sometimes an edit summary or block log will contain a link to a diff or other
> Wikimedia page that cannot be accessed through a wikilink. Wikimedia software
> does not allow external links; presumably for spam reasons; however, if the
> link is internal, it should be allowed (just as wikilinks are allowed). An
> example of where this would have been useful is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Light%20current
> (search for "http").
> 
> I imagine that for sites not affiliated with Wikimedia, one might allow
> internal sites or other sites, with an option to allow or disallow. Perhaps an
> "opt-in" list for legal sites? Second part optional to first part.
> 

I'm pretty sure you can use links in log entries and edit summaries. They are not actual links though. Is that what you're requesting? If so, all links should be actual links (and blacklisted domains will not be permitted of course).

I'm also interested in having the links in summaries as "actual links". This is usefull when we are linking to a diff or to a specific revision of a page in the same project (or in other Wikimedia projects). For example, the summary of the following revisions should be an actual link:
http://pt.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Edittools&curid=18840&diff=131023&oldid=130996
(note: I've used the wiki code
commons:MediaWiki:Edittools|MediaWiki%3AEdittools]]&diff=23178727&oldid=22539783">http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=[[commons:MediaWiki:Edittools|MediaWiki%3AEdittools]]&diff=23178727&oldid=22539783
but this is not a link to what I wanted [the specific revision])
and
http://pt.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikilivros:Caixa_de_areia&diff=prev&oldid=130117

So, I think at least links to Wikimedia projects could be actual links.

There's no reason this should be only whitelisted domains. Unless blacklisted, any domain should be allowed.

(In reply to comment #4)
> There's no reason this should be only whitelisted domains. Unless blacklisted,
> any domain should be allowed.
> 
My worries would be spam; this could not be undone. I guarantee you you'd rather not see the consequences once the Hagger vandal started linking to http://test.on.nimp.org (hint: absolutely DO NOT visit that link unless you have an easy stomach and have javascript disabled or the ctrl-alt-del button ready). Just saying about blacklisted sites... might want to have a chat with community about this first.

Again, though, there's no reason to exclude whitelisted sites.

That domain is blacklisted and has been for a very long time. Though, I do see your point - with pages we can edit to remove links we don't want - not so for edit summaries and log reasons. Perhaps I was hasty on that point.

I don't see the value in external links. I do see the value in *internal* links to things that currently can only be linked to "externally" because there is no syntax for linking to them internally. But I consider that an issue that should be fixed by adding such a syntax, and then allowing *that* in summaries, not by permitting external links in summaries.

(In reply to comment #6)
> with pages we can edit to remove links we don't want - not so for
> edit summaries and log reasons.

Well, it is so, but only for the powers that be.

I think the rest of us prefer our edit histories without every other summary censored for our protection, though, which is why I'm opposed to allowing external links there.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I don't see the value in external links. I do see the value in *internal* links
> to things that currently can only be linked to "externally" because there is no
> syntax for linking to them internally. But I consider that an issue that should
> be fixed by adding such a syntax, and then allowing *that* in summaries, not by
> permitting external links in summaries.
> 
I agree.

Maybe we could use the same sintax of the magic words 'fullurl' and 'filepath'
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words#URL_data

because codes like
{{fullurl:w:pt:Wikipedia:A enciclopédia livre|action=edit&oldid=15930217}}
are shorter than the "external link" form
http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:A_enciclop%C3%A9dia_livre&action=edit&oldid=15930217

(In reply to comment #7)
> I do see the value in *internal* links
> to things that currently can only be linked to "externally" because there is no
> syntax for linking to them internally.

Agreed - I think there is an open bug report for that, but I can't immediately find it.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > with pages we can edit to remove links we don't want - not so for
> > edit summaries and log reasons.
> 
> Well, it is so, but only for the powers that be.

Unless you're talking about sysadmins manually editing the database, that's not true. There's no way to do it from inside the software.

*** Bug 13205 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 8321 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Suggestion: While I wouldn't want external links in the edit summary, but I think it would be great if links with {{fullurl:}} could work in the edit summary. This would allow to easily link stuff within the own wiki and some of the interwikis, but not make it possible to link spam in the edit summary. 

I also think this feature would be great. It is requested frequently by the German Wikipedia community.
In my opinion the usual link form with http:// should be supported as well as the {{fullurl:, because it easier works with c&p. I dont think the length of the link matters, as far as you dont type it manually :-)

Another question would be whether the feature should work with already existing log entries. Is that possible?

(In reply to comment #13)
> Suggestion: While I wouldn't want external links in the edit summary, but I
> think it would be great if links with {{fullurl:}} could work in the edit
> summary. This would allow to easily link stuff within the own wiki and some of
> the interwikis, but not make it possible to link spam in the edit summary. 

That would most likely require running all core parsers. Not sure if using parser functions like {{fullurl:}} should be parsed. I would vote "No", since they are often used in summaries to perhaps explain things.
The last thing we want is having to use <nowiki> in an edit summary.

(In reply to comment #6)
> That domain is blacklisted and has been for a very long time. Though, I do see
> your point - with pages we can edit to remove links we don't want - not so for
> edit summaries and log reasons. Perhaps I was hasty on that point.

True, the edit summary can't be edited. So perhaps we should only allow external links in log entries (which limites the exposure) and not in edit summaries.

On the other hand, now that RevisionDelete is well-integrated. This would be a great usecase for the sysop version of revisiondelete (hiding an edit summary that contains spam).

So parsing plain external links (ie. not [http://link linktext] but just plain simple external links) in all edit summaries and external links is a good idea imho. (Just like normal [[links]] are parsed as well)

Related URL: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/63395 (Gerrit Change I77fdaf8e04375caa1d67ca4a3ec3bd93920c3309)

You can use Special:PermanentLink/revisionId. It even looks prettier than the hole url. But complete urls are required in some cases and making them active links (only whitelisted) can be useful.

Change 172017 had a related patch set uploaded by MZMcBride:
Make free-form external links clickable in edit summaries

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/172017

Note, the summary's is a parsing level used in many other places, including extensions.

(In reply to Tim Weyer from comment #17)
> making them
> active links (only whitelisted) can be useful.

What whitelists could one use? The current site? Interwiki map?  $wgNoFollowDomainExceptions?