Kurt- can say [[#External links]] for an internal reference, or [[Wikipedia#External links]] from elsewhere. It should work with all existing headlines, although you have to be sure your cash is clear. Regards, Erik

Toby- Well, as I recently learned, it was always possible to link to anchors within other articles using the [[foo#bar]] syntax. Only the anchors were not yet added to the articles (but could be added manually using HTML). Now the anchors are auto-generated, because it was necessary for the table of contents generation to do that. I'm not inclined to modify the code to take a previously existing feature (the [[foo#bar]] support) out, which means that it is now possible to link to sections on any page from any page. Call it a side effect that was difficult to avoid. Regards, Erik

Erik Moeller schrieb: But we have discussed this over and over. Please don't do it. Kurt

Toby- Yes, we can do that. I'd like to have a general consensus on the matter, though. Heh, just kidding. But we should have a vote first. Several people have requested this functionality. Regards, Erik

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 10:57:26AM -0700, Axel Boldt wrote: I think that's not the right attitude. Techinal people should implement whatever may be useful, even when there are downsides, and consensus should be reached about policy of usage of these new features. This consensus may be different for different Wikipedias, and almost for sure it will be different for Wiktionary (where there are standard anchor targets "X Language" and multipart articles). That way every wiki has what it wants. Mixing policy issues with technical issues enforces views of majority on everyone else, even if different projects have drastically different needs.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:07:17 +0100, Kurt Jansson <jansson(a)gmx.net> gave utterance to the following: Without reaching consensus. It's a feature I very much want. Remember - the number of "views" of an article will probably outnumber the number of edits by 100 to 1. Isn't a little bit of inconvenience for editors outweighed by a lot of convenience for readers who aren't editing? -- Richard Grevers And on the eighth day God said 'OK Murphy you take over'.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: Unfortunalty, everytime someone say something like: have a different default skin, someother say's: not without consens over all wikipedias. Can you imagine thier reactions on your proposal? There seems to be no way of 'every wiki get's what it wants' -- theres only one solution possible for all wikipedias - unfortunatly. -- Smurf smurf(a)AdamAnt.mud.de ------------------------- Anthill inside! ---------------------------

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Kurt Jansson wrote: [snip] While I'm not very enthused about the idea of using volatile header text as anchor names, I'm not nearly so worried about having anchors as you: * If an anchor name changes, the link still takes you to the wrong part of the right page, just as it does now. * If an anchor-linked section is removed from an article and/or made into a separate page, any anchor-links to it will fall on the old page, exactly as they would now without the anchor link. * Identifying pages which link to some particular anchor is no more difficult than identifying pages which link to the page intending to point the reader at some subsection but without being able to do it. Programmatically it could be made much much easier, if someone cares to make that additional feature. Of course, maybe we *shouldn't* have pages so long that people feel the need to anchor into them. But if we do, *AND WE DO RIGHT NOW*, is it a crime to simplify the lives of people trying to read those pages at the cost that, occasionally, a link might break and be no worse than it is at present? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On 6/30/03 5:05 PM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote: This whole discussion REALLY should be taking place on the wikipedia-l list. Unilateral, unilateral.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: You're correct, but I think that some discussion may still be useful. For example, is it possible to disable [[X#Y]] links on Wikipedia but enable them on Wikitionary, or would this be horrid to code? A justification for allowing these links in Wiktionary is that Wiktionary has highly standardised header names; they're always "English", "French", "German", "Polish", etc. But headers in Wikipedia are unstable. Not that this is the only possible solution, but a few more days of discussion could help, as long as people agree that we're working towards compromise. In the end, I'd suggest erring on the side of too much functionality and relying on policy to hold this back -- but that's imperfect too, since it's hard for policy to stop people from doing what they can. I'll advertise this on <wikipedia-L>. I also have another technical question for Erik: How does [[Special:Whatlinkshere]] interact with this? -- Toby

Toby- It simply shows the links to the page, without the anchor. But the anchors don't break Special:Whatlinkshere. Regards, Erik

Brion Vibber schrieb: Sorry if I seem a bit heated - I'm not :-) Okay, I'm still sure that we'll end up in a complete mess (or loose much time to keep everything tidy, or maybe both), but I won't argue against it anymore. I'll just bookmark a link to this mail and wait some months ... :-) Kurt

Toby Bartels wrote: Yes. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Hi, Who does have access to the German Wikipedia server currently? Hahaha! :-) ... I haven't promised anything yet, though. :-) Greetings, Timwi

I'd like to approve Erik, Magnus, and Tarquin for server access, if that is something they'd like to do, and if that's something that we think would be useful. There are probably others who I've overlooked, but if lack of people with direct server access is a bottleneck, we should do something about that. In general, even developers don't really need direct server access. As long as we have enough people to update the live site from CVS at appropriate times, and enough people to give the machines a kick in the pants when needed... Direct server access is a matter of great trust, not just in terms of character, either. Lots and lots of people have excellent character and I would trust them on those grounds with server access. But there is a 'technical' component to it, i.e. knowing how to get around in Unix without breaking anything. And I guess there's a personality component, since the server setup isn't like a wiki where lots of people should be on there willy-nilly reconfiguring things. :-) But it seems like this is sort of a bottleneck, and the solution is pretty simple. --Jimbo

Well, but developers would need write access to CVS then. Timwi