![]() | This interface page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() |
MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text is the text shown below a redirect after creating a page move. This interface message or skin may also be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net. The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors. To request a change to the page, add {{ edit fully-protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion. |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion at Template talk:R from move#Request for comment, create this page with {{R from move}} as the contents. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this change. Changes to the template in question did not change a lot of people's minds. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
To editors Jackmcbarn, GeoffreyT2000, Mr. Stradivarius and Redrose64: You are invited to this discussion because a community consensus is sought to re-add the {{ This is a redirect}} template (shortcut is "Redr") to this page. I will also place discussion notices at WT:Redirect and WT:WikiProject Redirect (and anywhere else you suggest) to see if a wider consensus can be reached. As you know, as a result of the RfC mentioned in the previous section above, this page was created to automatically capture and sort redirects that are left behind after page moves to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Redirects from moves. That will remain as is, because whether {{ R from move}} is applied individually (as it is now) or via the Redr template, the purpose of this page remains the same. So why use the Redr template to populate the Redirects from moves category? Over time there have been many improvements to the Redr template, and one of the most important fairly new ones is its ability to sense protection levels, both edit and move, and sort protected redirects to appropriate categories automatically. Also, if a redirect's protection level changes, then Redr will sense the change and automatically remove/add protection templates and categories as needed.
It seems that more and more I see editors use the Redr template to apply redirect category ( rcat) templates to redirects. So in this case, where only R from move is applied, more and more editors are learning how to add rcats to the Redr template, which means that it's a little easier for them to apply other appropriate rcats to redirects via the Redr template (a redirect from a page move might also be an alternative name, or a misspelling and need more than just R from move applied). I would like to make an edit request to add the Redr template back to this page, and I agree that a wider consensus is needed before that request can be made. So I invite all who come to this discussion to look at Redr's documentation and the comparison page I made that gives editors a tool to decide whether to apply rcats individually or by use of the Redr template. Then if you would be so kind as to give your opinion in support of my proposed edit request or in opposition to it. Happy holidays! Paine 12:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from misspelling}}
and {{
R from alternative language}}
use. That is why I don’t like the collapsing.
Gorobay (
talk)
00:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
.redirectMsg~table tr {display:initial!important}
{{
This is a redirect|from move}}
, not {{
redr|from move}}
. Templates should be self-documenting as much as possible. I've seen
WP:AWB bypass template shortcuts to replace them with the full template names, as a general minor fix, and AWB should do that for this template, too. Editors are too easily confused about the subtle distinctions between {{
This is a redirect}}, {{
Redirect}} and #REDIRECT, and we should avoid adding to their confusion. I'm not clear on the rationale for putting a blank line at the top, but we don't generally do that. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
Redr}}
which makes me a bit reluctant to see it become the de facto norm, namely the need to maintain the numbering of parameters. Compare {{Redr|from move|from alternative name|p2=plant}}
and {{Redr|from alternative name|p1=plant|from move}}
. I've seen editors change the ordering of the R cats ("from move" seems less important than describing the nature of the redirect) without changing the numbering of the parameter and I've also made this mistake myself. I'm not convinced that the minor advantage of the "lock" icon overrides this disadvantage.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
if familiar with the This is a redirect template, they will find it easier and quicker to add rcats within that template– maybe, but if not familiar with it, they will find it less easy, since it introduces a level of indirection – you use part of the name of a template as a parameter, which I suspect is odd to a non-programmer. Further the R cat templates are equivalent to categories, and we are all used to adding them separately. (We don't have a "This is a category" template, with category names as parameters.) However, I think that only fairly experienced editors usually add R cats, so I doubt that ease of use matters much either way. If Redr does become the recommended default, then I will suggest avoiding parameterized R cats, since these are definitely less easy to use with Redr, so e.g. {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}} should become {{R from alternative scientific name of a plant}}. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
This is a redirect|from move}}
, not {{
redr|from move}}
(I don't see the point in using a shortcut when templates are applied by machine; we're not saving the machine any keystrokes). And uncollapse the message displayed (I assume there has been previous discussion in support of collapsing in general; would it be possible to uncollapse by default when |from move is the only parameter?)
Plantdrew (
talk)
20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC){{
Redr}}
/individual R cat templates. What approach is more useful to those editors who want to see the categorization used for redirects? Why is it more useful? I personally agree with
Godsy, but
WP:I DON'T LIKE IT isn't enough.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
pp-meta}}
, such as {{
pp-blp}}
, {{
pp-vandalism}}
etc. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
{{This is a redirect|R from move}}
as opposed to {{R from move}}
is still clunkier in the sense that it is a template and a parameter instead of a template respectively. It isn't as simple in nature. Besides that and the the automatic sensing of protection levels, the remaining and majority of this proposal is purely a visual cosmetic change. Just adding a different view as you seemed open to them in you original comment, and because "I think it's fine" didn't sound like resounding support. Regards,—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT)
19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
|reason=
, |of=
, and other parameters of the templates that support them, and add them to more templates that don't; this thing cannot presently handle those, even with its painful |n3=
stuff. I would support this if it worked like {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
and {{
Article issues}}
(from which code can probably be ripped easily), wrapping entire rcat templates, instead of trying to subsume them:
{{This is a redirect
{{R from move}}
{{R from long name}}
...
}}
{{
Resbox}}
– it will accept input like {{
Resbox|Done}}
, if the parameter matches a real template or template shortcut (in this case {{
Done}}
. But it also accepts {{Resbox|{{Done|Annotation here.}}}}
syntax. One thing it does not do is accept something like {{
Resbox|Done|Fixed}}
as a string of multiple template calls; it treats the second parameter as a value for the first; i.e. {{Resbox|Done|Fixed}}
= {{Resbox|{{Done|Fixed}}}}
. But that would be easy to recode for this meta-rcat template. People who want short syntax with no passed parameters (or ones passed the named-and-numbered, fiddly way) for the rcat templates can have it; those of us who want the more detailed, passed-parameter-supporting syntax can have it; and we could mix them in the same {{This is a redirect}}
instance: {{This is a redirect|move|rcon|p2=unprintworthy|{{R from alternative hyphenation|of=golden-bottomed}}
}}
, though I would write this in vertical syntax like the above example, and would hope a bot or AWB job would expand it all to the more easily understood syntax completely. And it should stop suppressing the display when rendered; the is absolutely no reason to hide from editors (the only people who look at these pages) what the rcat'ing it; if we're actually on the redir page there's a good chance we're actually there to get that information, and hiding it from us is annoying and time-wasting. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC). Updated: 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Testing: I just sandboxed this a bunch of times
[1] and it still has some lingering output problems. The |embed=yes
thing is throwing errors. And, as with all templates that generate a block element and begin it with a list (see
Template:Block indent/doc#Technical issues with block templates) there's a list generation problem if something doesn't come before the list. {{
Quote}}
is an exception, somehow; I've opened a thread on its talk page about IDing why it is "immune" to this
MediaWiki bug, and about propagating whatever the fix was to other templates. Major progress though!
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|embed=
parameter must be used to call the top Redirect template in each rcat. The advantage would be that any other parameter of an rcat can be used without resorting to the |p#=
and |n#=
parameters. So the following:{{This is a redirect |{{R from a book|printworthy|embed=yes}} |{{R from alternative language|fr|ja|embed=yes}} |{{R from other capitalisation|printworthy|2=(text)|embed=yes}} }}
{{This is a redirect |from a book |p1=printworthy |from alternative language |p2=fr |n2=ja |from other capitalisation |p3=printworthy |n3=(text) }}
{{
R from alternative hyphenation}}
and moving on it will take some re-learning. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)@ Paine Ellsworth: See also: Template talk:Quote#A vexing issue fixed here, but how?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:REDCAT, "Use of a blank line between the redirect target link and all rcats and category links promotes readability of the code." Would adding a blank line above the content of this interface page accomplish this?; If so, as this is a fairly standard practice that is recommended by an editing guideline, it would be a good thing to implement. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Done ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The {{ R from move}} should be surrounded using {{ Redirect category shell}}. Nixinova T C 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. See the discussion about {{
redr}} above. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Would like to thank Nixinova and other editors who have supported this change both recently and in the past. An example of note is the August 2019 discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 176#Redirects created upon pagemove, which shows that this still might be a bit contentious, or at least not well-understood. Perhaps this is ready for another RfC similar to that above from more than three years ago? Should like to ping the following to see what's on their minds... To editors Jackmcbarn, GeoffreyT2000, Mr. Stradivarius, Redrose64, Gorobay, Wbm1058 and SMcCandlish: & To editors Tavix, Peter coxhead, Godsy, Plantdrew, Ivanvector and Steel1943: & To editors UnitedStatesian, PrimeHunter and Cobaltcigs: issues that existed with the "This is a redirect" template (Redr) were resolved by converting to the {{ Redirect category shell}} template. As many recall, that was a major changeover with editors and bots working overtime to convert all usages of Redr to the Rcat shell. So my questions would be 1) is the Rcat shell ready for this MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text page?, is this page ready for the Rcat shell? and can we garner consensus for the suggested change? (if and only if they are ready for each other) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
{{rcat shell|{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} {{rcat shell|R from move}} }}
for example?
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone and done this. The above agreement is clear, and the changes in the template largely do away with the concerns from 2016. Holla if there're problems. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Izno: Please revert Special:Diff/1086840051, which is causing the literal text <div class="mw-parser-output"> to appear on redirects from page moves. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This interface page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() |
MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text is the text shown below a redirect after creating a page move. This interface message or skin may also be documented on MediaWiki.org or translatewiki.net. The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators and interface editors. To request a change to the page, add {{ edit fully-protected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to bring more people to the discussion. |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion at Template talk:R from move#Request for comment, create this page with {{R from move}} as the contents. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this change. Changes to the template in question did not change a lot of people's minds. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
To editors Jackmcbarn, GeoffreyT2000, Mr. Stradivarius and Redrose64: You are invited to this discussion because a community consensus is sought to re-add the {{ This is a redirect}} template (shortcut is "Redr") to this page. I will also place discussion notices at WT:Redirect and WT:WikiProject Redirect (and anywhere else you suggest) to see if a wider consensus can be reached. As you know, as a result of the RfC mentioned in the previous section above, this page was created to automatically capture and sort redirects that are left behind after page moves to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Redirects from moves. That will remain as is, because whether {{ R from move}} is applied individually (as it is now) or via the Redr template, the purpose of this page remains the same. So why use the Redr template to populate the Redirects from moves category? Over time there have been many improvements to the Redr template, and one of the most important fairly new ones is its ability to sense protection levels, both edit and move, and sort protected redirects to appropriate categories automatically. Also, if a redirect's protection level changes, then Redr will sense the change and automatically remove/add protection templates and categories as needed.
It seems that more and more I see editors use the Redr template to apply redirect category ( rcat) templates to redirects. So in this case, where only R from move is applied, more and more editors are learning how to add rcats to the Redr template, which means that it's a little easier for them to apply other appropriate rcats to redirects via the Redr template (a redirect from a page move might also be an alternative name, or a misspelling and need more than just R from move applied). I would like to make an edit request to add the Redr template back to this page, and I agree that a wider consensus is needed before that request can be made. So I invite all who come to this discussion to look at Redr's documentation and the comparison page I made that gives editors a tool to decide whether to apply rcats individually or by use of the Redr template. Then if you would be so kind as to give your opinion in support of my proposed edit request or in opposition to it. Happy holidays! Paine 12:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
R from misspelling}}
and {{
R from alternative language}}
use. That is why I don’t like the collapsing.
Gorobay (
talk)
00:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
.redirectMsg~table tr {display:initial!important}
{{
This is a redirect|from move}}
, not {{
redr|from move}}
. Templates should be self-documenting as much as possible. I've seen
WP:AWB bypass template shortcuts to replace them with the full template names, as a general minor fix, and AWB should do that for this template, too. Editors are too easily confused about the subtle distinctions between {{
This is a redirect}}, {{
Redirect}} and #REDIRECT, and we should avoid adding to their confusion. I'm not clear on the rationale for putting a blank line at the top, but we don't generally do that. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
Redr}}
which makes me a bit reluctant to see it become the de facto norm, namely the need to maintain the numbering of parameters. Compare {{Redr|from move|from alternative name|p2=plant}}
and {{Redr|from alternative name|p1=plant|from move}}
. I've seen editors change the ordering of the R cats ("from move" seems less important than describing the nature of the redirect) without changing the numbering of the parameter and I've also made this mistake myself. I'm not convinced that the minor advantage of the "lock" icon overrides this disadvantage.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
14:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
if familiar with the This is a redirect template, they will find it easier and quicker to add rcats within that template– maybe, but if not familiar with it, they will find it less easy, since it introduces a level of indirection – you use part of the name of a template as a parameter, which I suspect is odd to a non-programmer. Further the R cat templates are equivalent to categories, and we are all used to adding them separately. (We don't have a "This is a category" template, with category names as parameters.) However, I think that only fairly experienced editors usually add R cats, so I doubt that ease of use matters much either way. If Redr does become the recommended default, then I will suggest avoiding parameterized R cats, since these are definitely less easy to use with Redr, so e.g. {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}} should become {{R from alternative scientific name of a plant}}. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
This is a redirect|from move}}
, not {{
redr|from move}}
(I don't see the point in using a shortcut when templates are applied by machine; we're not saving the machine any keystrokes). And uncollapse the message displayed (I assume there has been previous discussion in support of collapsing in general; would it be possible to uncollapse by default when |from move is the only parameter?)
Plantdrew (
talk)
20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC){{
Redr}}
/individual R cat templates. What approach is more useful to those editors who want to see the categorization used for redirects? Why is it more useful? I personally agree with
Godsy, but
WP:I DON'T LIKE IT isn't enough.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
pp-meta}}
, such as {{
pp-blp}}
, {{
pp-vandalism}}
etc. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
{{This is a redirect|R from move}}
as opposed to {{R from move}}
is still clunkier in the sense that it is a template and a parameter instead of a template respectively. It isn't as simple in nature. Besides that and the the automatic sensing of protection levels, the remaining and majority of this proposal is purely a visual cosmetic change. Just adding a different view as you seemed open to them in you original comment, and because "I think it's fine" didn't sound like resounding support. Regards,—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT)
19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
|reason=
, |of=
, and other parameters of the templates that support them, and add them to more templates that don't; this thing cannot presently handle those, even with its painful |n3=
stuff. I would support this if it worked like {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
and {{
Article issues}}
(from which code can probably be ripped easily), wrapping entire rcat templates, instead of trying to subsume them:
{{This is a redirect
{{R from move}}
{{R from long name}}
...
}}
{{
Resbox}}
– it will accept input like {{
Resbox|Done}}
, if the parameter matches a real template or template shortcut (in this case {{
Done}}
. But it also accepts {{Resbox|{{Done|Annotation here.}}}}
syntax. One thing it does not do is accept something like {{
Resbox|Done|Fixed}}
as a string of multiple template calls; it treats the second parameter as a value for the first; i.e. {{Resbox|Done|Fixed}}
= {{Resbox|{{Done|Fixed}}}}
. But that would be easy to recode for this meta-rcat template. People who want short syntax with no passed parameters (or ones passed the named-and-numbered, fiddly way) for the rcat templates can have it; those of us who want the more detailed, passed-parameter-supporting syntax can have it; and we could mix them in the same {{This is a redirect}}
instance: {{This is a redirect|move|rcon|p2=unprintworthy|{{R from alternative hyphenation|of=golden-bottomed}}
}}
, though I would write this in vertical syntax like the above example, and would hope a bot or AWB job would expand it all to the more easily understood syntax completely. And it should stop suppressing the display when rendered; the is absolutely no reason to hide from editors (the only people who look at these pages) what the rcat'ing it; if we're actually on the redir page there's a good chance we're actually there to get that information, and hiding it from us is annoying and time-wasting. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC). Updated: 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Testing: I just sandboxed this a bunch of times
[1] and it still has some lingering output problems. The |embed=yes
thing is throwing errors. And, as with all templates that generate a block element and begin it with a list (see
Template:Block indent/doc#Technical issues with block templates) there's a list generation problem if something doesn't come before the list. {{
Quote}}
is an exception, somehow; I've opened a thread on its talk page about IDing why it is "immune" to this
MediaWiki bug, and about propagating whatever the fix was to other templates. Major progress though!
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|embed=
parameter must be used to call the top Redirect template in each rcat. The advantage would be that any other parameter of an rcat can be used without resorting to the |p#=
and |n#=
parameters. So the following:{{This is a redirect |{{R from a book|printworthy|embed=yes}} |{{R from alternative language|fr|ja|embed=yes}} |{{R from other capitalisation|printworthy|2=(text)|embed=yes}} }}
{{This is a redirect |from a book |p1=printworthy |from alternative language |p2=fr |n2=ja |from other capitalisation |p3=printworthy |n3=(text) }}
{{
R from alternative hyphenation}}
and moving on it will take some re-learning. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)@ Paine Ellsworth: See also: Template talk:Quote#A vexing issue fixed here, but how?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:REDCAT, "Use of a blank line between the redirect target link and all rcats and category links promotes readability of the code." Would adding a blank line above the content of this interface page accomplish this?; If so, as this is a fairly standard practice that is recommended by an editing guideline, it would be a good thing to implement. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Done ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The {{ R from move}} should be surrounded using {{ Redirect category shell}}. Nixinova T C 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. See the discussion about {{
redr}} above. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Would like to thank Nixinova and other editors who have supported this change both recently and in the past. An example of note is the August 2019 discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 176#Redirects created upon pagemove, which shows that this still might be a bit contentious, or at least not well-understood. Perhaps this is ready for another RfC similar to that above from more than three years ago? Should like to ping the following to see what's on their minds... To editors Jackmcbarn, GeoffreyT2000, Mr. Stradivarius, Redrose64, Gorobay, Wbm1058 and SMcCandlish: & To editors Tavix, Peter coxhead, Godsy, Plantdrew, Ivanvector and Steel1943: & To editors UnitedStatesian, PrimeHunter and Cobaltcigs: issues that existed with the "This is a redirect" template (Redr) were resolved by converting to the {{ Redirect category shell}} template. As many recall, that was a major changeover with editors and bots working overtime to convert all usages of Redr to the Rcat shell. So my questions would be 1) is the Rcat shell ready for this MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text page?, is this page ready for the Rcat shell? and can we garner consensus for the suggested change? (if and only if they are ready for each other) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
{{rcat shell|{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} {{rcat shell|R from move}} }}
for example?
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone and done this. The above agreement is clear, and the changes in the template largely do away with the concerns from 2016. Holla if there're problems. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Izno: Please revert Special:Diff/1086840051, which is causing the literal text <div class="mw-parser-output"> to appear on redirects from page moves. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)