Last modified: 2014-10-23 19:29:44 UTC
When I edited an internal link and pasted in Work_breakdown_structure#Terminal_element as the new link target, the link editor widget thought that it was a new page, because it didn't understand that the # referenced an anchor within that page. However, that was just a harmless warning - it did work. So I am classifying this as minor severity, because it is merely an incorrect warning message that could confuse editors.
* The link inspector needs to understand that if Foo exists, linking to Foo#Bar isn't a red link * Ideally the link inspector should have introspection of articles' sections so that it can suggest which headings to link to * This should also work for naked (local) section links - i.e., linking to just #Bar on the local page.
*** Bug 51118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
When reporting the duplicate bug (sorry, this one didn't come up in my search) I wondered whether this was related to Bug 33094
(In reply to comment #3) > When reporting the duplicate bug (sorry, this one didn't come up in my > search) Don't worry, it's my fault for not triaging earlier. :-) > I wondered whether this was related to Bug 33094 I don't believe so (though we should get that fixed soon too, of course).
*** Bug 51121 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Worth noting here the comments on bug 50945 about cases where display text != link text (piped links)
This isn't just a display problem, and it is NOT an enhancement - it's a real defect because editors are unlikely to take the time - as I did - to figure out how to make section links work. Here's what happens now: The editor finds an article to link to (good UI; much better than the wikitext editor); then he/she starts typing the section link (#whatever). The link name turns red (that's the display issue), and it doesn't suggest section names (that would be a really slick enhancement; if you do this well, people are going to love you). Instead, when the editor is done typing the section information, one of four things can happen: * The editor presses Enter/Return (per the user guide), and the section information is REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. * The editor presses the close icon (<) (per the user guide), and the section information is REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. * The editor clicks somewhere else on the page, and the section information is REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. * The editor clicks on the area ABOVE the input box, the area containing the word "Hyperlink", and VE is happy, and saves the section information. (I'm going to add that to the user guide, but that wouldn't do nearly as much good as changing, in the software, what happens in the first three situations, above.
*** Bug 51445 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The suggestion of the sections that can be linked are also requested at it.wp.
The VE software has changed (at least a week ago, maybe longer) for this issue. Now pressing [Return] does not remove the "#Whatever" text that the user typed, for the section link. So this bug is now primarily a display issue. (In reply to comment #7) > This isn't just a display problem, and it is NOT an enhancement - it's a real > defect because editors are unlikely to take the time - as I did - to figure > out > how to make section links work. > > Here's what happens now: The editor finds an article to link to (good UI; > much > better than the wikitext editor); then he/she starts typing the section link > (#whatever). The link name turns red (that's the display issue), and it > doesn't > suggest section names (that would be a really slick enhancement; if you do > this > well, people are going to love you). Instead, when the editor is done typing > the section information, one of four things can happen: > > * The editor presses Enter/Return (per the user guide), and the section > information is REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. > > * The editor presses the close icon (<) (per the user guide), and the section > information is REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. > > * The editor clicks somewhere else on the page, and the section information > is > REMOVED by VE. That is clearly a defect in the software. > > * The editor clicks on the area ABOVE the input box, the area containing the > word "Hyperlink", and VE is happy, and saves the section information. (I'm > going to add that to the user guide, but that wouldn't do nearly as much good > as changing, in the software, what happens in the first three situations, > above.
John reports today that "It used to be possible, in VE, to link to another section of a page (say, Bank#History). Now, when section information is added, in the Link/Hyperlink dialog box, VE just deletes it when the user presses [return] or exits (in any way) that dialog box."
(In reply to comment #11) > John reports today that "It used to be possible, in VE, to link to another > section of a page (say, Bank#History). Now, when section information is > added, > in the Link/Hyperlink dialog box, VE just deletes it when the user presses > [return] or exits (in any way) that dialog box." Noting for posterity that that was bug 53219, which has now been fixed.
*** Bug 61428 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
