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