There's an obscure easter egg feature in MediaWiki where if you put "RFC X" (where X is a number) it automatically creates a link to the Internet Engineering Task Force RFC at tools.ietf.org. This was probably fine in the early days of Wikipedia, but it's now an annoying anachronism. Wikipedia has it's own RFCs (some of which are numbered) and when people mention them, they get these automatic links to the wrong place and people get very confused. The links even get created in Echo notifications (T70217). Can we kill this feature?
|Open||None||T31145 Core features that shouldn't be in core (tracking)|
|Open||None||T31473 Magic Linking (tracking)|
|Open||None||T28207 Split magic linking out of core; create new magic linking extension|
|Open||None||T136342 Kill automatic RFC linking|
- Mentioned In
- T5663: Add Special page similar to Special:BookSources for ISSNs (International Standard Serial Numbers)
- Mentioned Here
- T47942: "Magic links" RFC, PMID and ISBN should be configurable and disableable
T28207: Split magic linking out of core; create new magic linking extension
T70217: Link in notification points to unexpected destination due to magic linking ("RFC #")
Looks like this is handled by Parser::doMagicLinks(). There are two other magic links besides RFC: PMID and ISBN. PMID and ISBN seem like good ideas as they are used frequently in references and are canonical (there aren't competing uses of PMID and ISBN). IETF RFCs are rarely used in references, and the acronym "RFC" on Wikipedia is just as likely to refer to an internal RFC as an IETF RFC.
@Legoktm I am not 100% in favour of having this as a duplicate of T28207: Split magic linking out of core; create new magic linking extension, since that one is about replacement and this about killing the feature. There is also T47942: "Magic links" RFC, PMID and ISBN should be configurable and disableable which this task may in fact be also duplicate to.
@kaldari : What exactly you wanted? Remove the feature from PHP code at all or remove the feature from WMF wikis or something else?
That's not what "easily killed" means. You'll break every revision of every MediaWiki instance on Earth that uses this feature forever. The fact that you'd "just" need to insert five characters to fix future (but not existing) revisions doesn't reduce the impact. :-)
That's a bit of fallacy.
- Deleting of templates or redirects also breaks historical revisions as well as changing the content of transcluded templates may break them or at least become out of context.
- Killing the automagic linking feature won't break anything, since plaintext will be displayed instead. Which is like there was no automagic linking before and suddenly we have added interwiki.
- Diffs of the historical revisions (of course except for the add-interwiki one) won't be affected.
And personal POV: Who cares about content of historical revisions from the perspective of clicking links there? Fortiori if they exist in the current one?
I agree that there won't be any 100% replacement, however, it won't break or make difficult to read anything.
I have to agree with Danny here.
Of all the syntax changes MediaWiki has had, and are planned, this has the
least impact afaik on old revs. The rendered version without the link is
fine. And a gadget could very easily relink the text.
@kaldari - don't get me wrong, I also want it turned off for exactly the same reasons! I just believe that the change should be made in a way that doesn't risk inconveniencing hypothetical users reliant on a long-established feature. It's hard to think of a feature that's been around longer; this predates MediaWiki.