Forum:Automatic link formatting

Forums: Village pump → Automatic link formatting

I am currently contemplating implementing an extension that'd allow us to alter how default ([[Page]]) links to a page look like on a per-page basis. Essentially, it'd allow you to type a basic link and get a formatted text output:

Wikitext	Current Output	Proposed Output
[[Shadowmourne]]	[Shadowmourne]	[Shadowmourne]
[[Nordrassil Wrath-Kilt]]	[Nordrassil Wrath-Kilt]	[Nordrassil Wrath-Kilt]
[[Quest:In Dreams]]	Quest:In Dreams	[60] In Dreams
[[Tripping the Rifts]]	[Tripping the Rifts]	[Tripping the Rifts]
[[Enchant Weapon - Agility]]	Enchant Weapon - Agility	[Enchant Weapon - Agility]
[[Void Terror]]	Void Terror	Void Terror
[[API CreateFrame]]	API CreateFrame	CreateFrame

Note that this only applies to default links (links without a specified caption text) -- if you wanted to do something particularly fancy, like  [Super-Shadowmourne], you'd still use our current syntax; and if you wanted a normal link, you could just append a pipe: [[Shadowmourne|]]. The choice of what to display for which pages is independent of the extension itself, so the examples above are not necessarily binding -- we could use the [Shadowmourne] style for item links, for instance.

For wiki-related purposes, the links would behave as ordinary links -- not template/page transclusions, as the current item/loot/quality system works.

Do you have any thoughts, suggestions, or questions related to this? — foxlit (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, I'd rather have a default choice that how we link now would show a link, not something colored in brackets and icons everywhere. --g0urra[T҂C] 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with gourra in this. As well, such a change decreases the consistency of how the markup is used, which makes it harder for people to jump in and change things and expect certain outputs for the person's input markup. Plus, this creates something of a dependency of an extension on templates, which is somewhat backward. --Sky (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the "But I want a link by default!" case has much merit -- most links to database content are already formatted using those templates, to the point that it's the defacto default, only a much bigger pain for the editors to type. Check it out: Item, Achievement, Quest... seems like the majority of incoming links is passed through a formatting template anyway. Ultimately, I do not see article paragraphs becoming christmas trees because of this change -- moderation in formatting use is ensured by editors, and this doesn't make it particularly hard. It would be helpful if you could point out concrete pages that would prove troublesome here.

My personal opinion is that this change would vastly improve usability for editors: adding a quest/item/achievement link is no longer an exercise in "What is that link template called again? Do I want quest or questlong? What do I pass it? In what order? Is this a group quest or an elite quest? Screw it, I'm going home." -- the change makes it a simple "Do I want to draw attention to this link, or blend it in with the other text?" choice, and the behavior and syntax can be explained in a single sentence, rather than miles of template documentation. As an additional benefit, we get links that reflect article content, rather than the randomly-sprinkled instances of questlong/loot that may fall out of sync with the article they're linking to.

I don't consider "dependency of an extension on templates" to be an argument at all -- the extension is blissfully ignorant of templates, nor would it matter if it wasn't. — foxlit (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say it does matter if it were (as that's your opinion and you didn't offer much of a reason to support your opinion—mine obviously disagrees), but as it's not, it's a moot point.
And that's your personal opinion. I'm of the opinion that we should be keeping things consistent. If I want a link, I want a link. If I want a pretty link, I want a template/pretty link. If I want a quest, then I'll use a quest template. I see where you're coming from with "do I want to draw attention?", but manipulating current syntax in that manner will make things more confusing for newbies. End of story.
I would be fine with supporting a {{#item:xxx}} parser type syntax, or the xml looking syntax of <item>xxx</item>, or even <item name="xxx" />, but I see your examples as an abuse and usurpation of the linking syntax. (As a note, Teomyr was looking into doing this sort of thing way back in 2007.) Further, there is already extensive documentation on the difficulties and perks of the current linking syntax, such as the pipe-trick and others (which we could and should have a local copy of); extending the documentation to cover your case would be, as before, a nightmare of consistency. "Link this like this, but this like this for all these other things" is somewhat stupid. --Sky (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)