Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Which majority doesn't want it ?
Me for example. The main reason is that encyclopaedia articles get restructured and we don't want to have to check all of the links to # anchors. If a # anchor will be fairly permanent and should be linked to, then that's a good sign that it really ought to be a separate article. (This is /not/ an objection to # links /within/ a single article.)
Of course, you've heard this before.
Just try using Wiktionary for a moment and you'll see why having option of linking (cross-article) to such headings is something that we have to implement.
Previous objections have been about Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. I would have to rethink my opinion in that case; possibly the two projects have different coding needs here.
Foo: ... .... ... ... ... [[Bar]] ... ...
Bar: === A language === ... ...... .... .... .... === B language === ........... ..... ....... .... ....... === C language === ... ...... ... ...... ... ... .... === D language === ...... .... ..... ...... .... .....
I see what you mean! But I wonder why you don't have pages like [[Bar (A)]], [[Bar (B)]], etc? I'm not objecting to Wiktionary policy, since I don't write Wiktionary, but I'm still curious -- you might direct me to a Wiktionary policy page.
-- Toby