Difference between revisions of "Issue:Redirects=include fails with hashmark"

From FollowTheScore
Jump to: navigation, search
(Problem)
 
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
: Actually the problem might be different: if an article has '''no headings''', then <nowiki>include=#</nowiki> gets none of the text. (This is the case with redirect pages.)  This seems wrong: a "#" should pull in all text up to the first heading, or if there is no heading, pull in the whole page. [[User:Maiden taiwan|Maiden taiwan]] 19:20, 4 June 2008 (CEST)
 
: Actually the problem might be different: if an article has '''no headings''', then <nowiki>include=#</nowiki> gets none of the text. (This is the case with redirect pages.)  This seems wrong: a "#" should pull in all text up to the first heading, or if there is no heading, pull in the whole page. [[User:Maiden taiwan|Maiden taiwan]] 19:20, 4 June 2008 (CEST)
 +
 +
:: Oh wait, include=%0 works properly.  But perhaps include=# has a bug? Shouldn't it be equivalent to include=%0?
  
 
== Reply ==
 
== Reply ==

Latest revision as of 19:22, 4 June 2008

Description: "redirects=include" fails with "include=#": no article text
Extension / Version: DPL   /   1.7.4
Type / Status: Bug   /   open

Problem

This example outputs no article text for redirects:

<dpl>
 category = Whatever
 include = #
 redirects = include
 </dpl>

That is, for articles of the form:

#REDIRECT [[foo]]
 [[Category:Whatever]]

You get the article name in the bullet, but no article text from "foo". If "redirects=include" really works, you should get the initial text from the target article.

It works if you use "include=%0[100]", so there's something special (and wrong) about "#".

Actually the problem might be different: if an article has no headings, then include=# gets none of the text. (This is the case with redirect pages.) This seems wrong: a "#" should pull in all text up to the first heading, or if there is no heading, pull in the whole page. Maiden taiwan 19:20, 4 June 2008 (CEST)
Oh wait, include=%0 works properly. But perhaps include=# has a bug? Shouldn't it be equivalent to include=%0?

Reply