![]() |
Template:R from move is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R from move template. |
|
![]() | Redirect Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template and its populated category were considered for deletion on 26 December 2010. The result of the discussion was delete BUT not until . . . |
![]() | This template was again considered for deletion on 11 September 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Following that deletion discussion was an RFC on the this talk page below. The result of that discussion was to automate the process and add Template:R from move to all redirects that are left behind from a page move/rename. |
I think this template may encourage some users to move an article to an inappropriate title, use this template to keep it from being reverted (without a request for page-move), then ask everyone to “assume good faith” during that week (“just following instructions”, etc.).
Stepping back a bit, what constructive purpose does this template serve? Note that page-moves are recorded amply in the log for the title in question, and in the edit summary of the revision produced during the page-move. What more is needed, and by whom? ― cobaltcigs 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Any chance this could be automatically added to the old page whenever a page is moved? -- BDD ( talk) 18:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The deletion discussion that recently closed with no consensus to delete as noted above is obviously unsatisfying for some contributors. The main problem seems to be the allegation that some editors misuse this Rcat by tagging a redirect-from-move with it, thereby making a 2nd edit to the redirect, which makes it more difficult to revert the move. Several possible solutions were discussed for this gnarly problem, and the closer of the deletion discussion suggested these be further discussed. So to try to avert yet a third attempt to delete this Rcat, I feel it's important to try to come up with a solution that will best serve the Wikipedia project and all readers and contributors. So please record your thoughts about this here in this discussion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
, solving this problem the right way.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make sure I understand. When gerrit:87345 goes live on October 17th, after that any time a page is moved, the redirect that is left behind will automatically be sorted into Category:Redirects from moves – is that correct? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
once the change goes live, but yes, after that they will.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
now do, because the wikicode will be exactly the same.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To editor
BDD: Did you plan to create
MediaWiki:move-redirect-text with content {{
R from move}}
when
gerrit:87345 goes live today? –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX! 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Now to deal with the problem for which editors have blamed this Rcat. I will add something to WP:REDIRECT about the need for a brief wait period before the addition of other Rcats to ensure an easy revert of the move back to status quo if it is contested. All are welcome to make any needed fixes to what I add. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"This rcat automatically tags all redirects that result from page moves" is potentially ambiguous, in that some less-experienced users may see this template on one redirect and think MediaWiki automatically adds it retroactively to old moved titles (as opposed to the reality, where it must be added manually to any redirect moved before the software change discussed above). Is there anything we should do to clarify this wording? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius – I have placed the following code in the sandbox and would like your help to engage it in {{ R from move}}:
{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{#switch: {{SUBPAGENAME}} |doc= |sandbox= |testcases= |#default={{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}}} |<!-- do nothing --> |{{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} |<!-- do nothing --> |[[Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects]]}}}}}}
The first part just ensures that a talk-page redirect exists after a page move. The switch keeps those three subpages out of the maintenance cat if they are the result of page moves and redirect to the main templates' pages. The next part compares the target of the talk page to the target of the subject page and, if the page names (excluding namespace) are the same, then nothing happens. If they are different/unsynched, then the rest of the code will place the talk page in
Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects
. As you see, that cat doesn't exist yet, as I've found no better-named existing category, and you might want to suggest a better name for it. This code will:
I have tested this code, and it appears to work well, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at it and maybe tweak it if needed (and then transfer the sandbox to the live template when ready). Pleasant pathways, Paine 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please see details above – the sandbox is ready to be deployed to template {{ R from move}}, which is now transcluded in a cascade-protected page, and can be edited only by administrators. Paine 08:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, your recent changes to this template are causing spurious misspelling listings at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. Note item #13 on that list, 2013 Oklahoma tornados. I was scratching my head over why that page was shown as a "linked misspelling" which was linking to itself, until I noticed m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous#Error categorization by #ifexist bug. I confirmed that this edit cleared the page from "what links here". So, until that Mediawiki bug is fixed, we need to fix all the pages that were {{ R from move}}d to correct a misspelling by either removing the {{ R from move}} as I did, or reverting to the previous version of this template that didn't use #ifexist. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}
function because I felt that it was necessary in order to determine if the balance of the new code was to be engaged. If a subject page was moved and the left-behind redirect had no talk page, then there was no need to engage the balance of the code; however, if the left-behind redirect had a talk page, then the balance of the code should be engaged. At this point what happened was that the new
Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects filled up quickly to more than 25,000 pages! The majority turned out to be talk-page archives that had no subject pages and are therefore unsynchronized (technically), so I added {{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
with
this edit. Entries began to drop out of the new category and stabilized at a more manageable number of < 8,000.{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}
code is absolutely necessary. I used it initially because I thought it made sense to ensure that any redirect left behind from a page move had a talk page that would also be autotagged with {{
redr|from move}}
in order to engage the rest of the new code in this rcat. On the other hand, the {{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
code was necessary to rid the new category of more than 17,000 talk-page redirects that had no subject pages. If that code is removed, then all those unwanted pages will again populate the new category. How to proceed?
Paine 08:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |move
and then check "what links here" again. Still reading the rest of your response.
Wbm1058 (
talk) 15:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)The majority turned out to be talk-page archives that had no subject pages and are therefore unsynchronized (technically)". Well, these should be fixed. Likely an article and its currrent talk page were moved, but the talk archives were left behind? If so, they should be reunited. Maybe, if there's a lot of these, we put them in a separate category. Happy holidays! to you, too! Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
function.
Paine 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Paine Ellsworth, after a month away from this, I'm looking at it again. Noting that this template {{ R from move}} is widely used on both mainspace (namespace 0) and talk pages (namespace 1), and we are looking to populate Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, shouldn't our first check be to see if we are on a talk page? If the first test is:
then if we are on namespace 0, we're done and thus no #ifexists are necessary when {{ R from move}} is transcluded on mainspace redirects. That should keep 1080º Avalanche from linking to itself and becoming a false-positive on the linked misspellings list.
Then if we are on a talk page because the NAMESPACENUMBER=1 test was successful, then #ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}} becomes unnecessary. We know the TALKPAGENAME exists because we are on it right now... the fact that {{ R from move}} is sitting on the talk page means it exists!
Next I think you found that when we are on a subpage of a talk page (most often an archive), such as Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 25, we should not populate Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. Instead of checking to see whether the corresponding mainspace page exists, why not check to see if we are on a subpage, and if so, we're done, as we don't want to put any subpages in Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I just noticed the red padlock on this template, and although the template itself is still just template-protected, I see the message:
"WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it because it is transcluded in the following page (which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled). Please ensure that you are following the protection policy."
Since that page was moved at 16:49, 20 November 2015, it is now transcluding {{ R from move}}. So because of this "cascading protection", I believe that you've been locked from editing {{ R from move}} since November 20. Can you confirm that? From the history, I see that you last edited this template on November 7.
Now, I go to that recently created {{ R from move}} redirect, and clicking on the "Change protection" dropdown, I see:
Change protection level for "Wikipedia:New admin/Protecting deleted pages/Transclusionist"
Please update the
protection templates on the page after changing the protection level. Note: If this page is protected due to office actions, do not unprotect it without proper authorization. |
and I see that the box for "Cascading protection (automatically protect any pages transcluded in this page)" is checked.
Now, if you and other template editors want to be able to edit Template:R from move again, I see two options:
Not knowing the full implications of removing cascading protection there, I'm thinking that the second choice might be safer. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I found Martin's October 31 fix: HERE. The offending page was User:Chillum/Salt. I suspect you were locked out between Sept. 21 and Oct. 31. Who knows why cascade was checked on that page, as Martin said in his edit summary, "cascading presumably not needed". This will likely be an ongoing problem as admins randomly move pages with the cascading option checked on. That option being turned on by any admin-protected page transcluding {{ R from move}} is simply not compatible with template editors being able to edit the template. Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, the {R from move} template has a link to itself. So the pages that are redirects from a move due to a misspelling show up at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Linked_misspellings. An example page is 1998–99 Allied Dunbar Premership Two, which shows itself as the only namespace article that links to it ( [1]). Is there any way to make it so that this doesn't happen? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ R from move}} on a page without a redirect can generate Category:Pages with script errors. It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category:Pages with script errors being flooded with errors. PrimeHunter ( talk) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Swisslog Holding" to "Swisslog", as this is the correct name of the company JulianJorns ( talk) 13:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 14:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)To editor Steel1943: Hey-de-hay, Steelman!
|from=a page that has been moved (renamed) or is the result of a page move |info=One reason this page was kept as a redirect is to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. Any redirect with a page move logged on its history page should be tagged with this rcat template.
Just added text to clarify the usage of this rcat template. Done this thousands of times to this and other rcats. You say "this wording addition needs discussion since it wasn't discussed and I don't agree with it". What exactly seems off the mark to you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Is [the] editor then expected to REMOVE the redirect from the main redirects-from-moves category and put it somewhere else?": Well ... with the exception of the "somewhere else" part (since to my knowledge, such an rcat doesn't exist yet), that's what I've been doing for a few years now, so it makes sense to me. I'd say it's akin to other situations where an rcat is changed on a redirect after the redirect's target has changed, such as when a redirect tagged with {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} gets retargeted to a disambiguation page and gets recategorized with {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} after its disambiguator becomes ambiguous. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:R from move is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
R from move template. |
|
![]() | Redirect Template‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This template and its populated category were considered for deletion on 26 December 2010. The result of the discussion was delete BUT not until . . . |
![]() | This template was again considered for deletion on 11 September 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Following that deletion discussion was an RFC on the this talk page below. The result of that discussion was to automate the process and add Template:R from move to all redirects that are left behind from a page move/rename. |
I think this template may encourage some users to move an article to an inappropriate title, use this template to keep it from being reverted (without a request for page-move), then ask everyone to “assume good faith” during that week (“just following instructions”, etc.).
Stepping back a bit, what constructive purpose does this template serve? Note that page-moves are recorded amply in the log for the title in question, and in the edit summary of the revision produced during the page-move. What more is needed, and by whom? ― cobaltcigs 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Any chance this could be automatically added to the old page whenever a page is moved? -- BDD ( talk) 18:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The deletion discussion that recently closed with no consensus to delete as noted above is obviously unsatisfying for some contributors. The main problem seems to be the allegation that some editors misuse this Rcat by tagging a redirect-from-move with it, thereby making a 2nd edit to the redirect, which makes it more difficult to revert the move. Several possible solutions were discussed for this gnarly problem, and the closer of the deletion discussion suggested these be further discussed. So to try to avert yet a third attempt to delete this Rcat, I feel it's important to try to come up with a solution that will best serve the Wikipedia project and all readers and contributors. So please record your thoughts about this here in this discussion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
, solving this problem the right way.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 15:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to make sure I understand. When gerrit:87345 goes live on October 17th, after that any time a page is moved, the redirect that is left behind will automatically be sorted into Category:Redirects from moves – is that correct? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
once the change goes live, but yes, after that they will.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 17:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
now do, because the wikicode will be exactly the same.
Jackmcbarn (
talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To editor
BDD: Did you plan to create
MediaWiki:move-redirect-text with content {{
R from move}}
when
gerrit:87345 goes live today? –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX! 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Now to deal with the problem for which editors have blamed this Rcat. I will add something to WP:REDIRECT about the need for a brief wait period before the addition of other Rcats to ensure an easy revert of the move back to status quo if it is contested. All are welcome to make any needed fixes to what I add. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"This rcat automatically tags all redirects that result from page moves" is potentially ambiguous, in that some less-experienced users may see this template on one redirect and think MediaWiki automatically adds it retroactively to old moved titles (as opposed to the reality, where it must be added manually to any redirect moved before the software change discussed above). Is there anything we should do to clarify this wording? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius – I have placed the following code in the sandbox and would like your help to engage it in {{ R from move}}:
{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{#switch: {{SUBPAGENAME}} |doc= |sandbox= |testcases= |#default={{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}}|{{PAGENAME:{{#invoke:redirect|main|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}}}} |<!-- do nothing --> |{{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} |<!-- do nothing --> |[[Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects]]}}}}}}
The first part just ensures that a talk-page redirect exists after a page move. The switch keeps those three subpages out of the maintenance cat if they are the result of page moves and redirect to the main templates' pages. The next part compares the target of the talk page to the target of the subject page and, if the page names (excluding namespace) are the same, then nothing happens. If they are different/unsynched, then the rest of the code will place the talk page in
Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects
. As you see, that cat doesn't exist yet, as I've found no better-named existing category, and you might want to suggest a better name for it. This code will:
I have tested this code, and it appears to work well, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at it and maybe tweak it if needed (and then transfer the sandbox to the live template when ready). Pleasant pathways, Paine 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please see details above – the sandbox is ready to be deployed to template {{ R from move}}, which is now transcluded in a cascade-protected page, and can be edited only by administrators. Paine 08:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, your recent changes to this template are causing spurious misspelling listings at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. Note item #13 on that list, 2013 Oklahoma tornados. I was scratching my head over why that page was shown as a "linked misspelling" which was linking to itself, until I noticed m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Miscellaneous#Error categorization by #ifexist bug. I confirmed that this edit cleared the page from "what links here". So, until that Mediawiki bug is fixed, we need to fix all the pages that were {{ R from move}}d to correct a misspelling by either removing the {{ R from move}} as I did, or reverting to the previous version of this template that didn't use #ifexist. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}
function because I felt that it was necessary in order to determine if the balance of the new code was to be engaged. If a subject page was moved and the left-behind redirect had no talk page, then there was no need to engage the balance of the code; however, if the left-behind redirect had a talk page, then the balance of the code should be engaged. At this point what happened was that the new
Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects filled up quickly to more than 25,000 pages! The majority turned out to be talk-page archives that had no subject pages and are therefore unsynchronized (technically), so I added {{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
with
this edit. Entries began to drop out of the new category and stabilized at a more manageable number of < 8,000.{{#ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}}
code is absolutely necessary. I used it initially because I thought it made sense to ensure that any redirect left behind from a page move had a talk page that would also be autotagged with {{
redr|from move}}
in order to engage the rest of the new code in this rcat. On the other hand, the {{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
code was necessary to rid the new category of more than 17,000 talk-page redirects that had no subject pages. If that code is removed, then all those unwanted pages will again populate the new category. How to proceed?
Paine 08:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC) |move
and then check "what links here" again. Still reading the rest of your response.
Wbm1058 (
talk) 15:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)The majority turned out to be talk-page archives that had no subject pages and are therefore unsynchronized (technically)". Well, these should be fixed. Likely an article and its currrent talk page were moved, but the talk archives were left behind? If so, they should be reunited. Maybe, if there's a lot of these, we put them in a separate category. Happy holidays! to you, too! Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifexist: {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}
function.
Paine 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Paine Ellsworth, after a month away from this, I'm looking at it again. Noting that this template {{ R from move}} is widely used on both mainspace (namespace 0) and talk pages (namespace 1), and we are looking to populate Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects, shouldn't our first check be to see if we are on a talk page? If the first test is:
then if we are on namespace 0, we're done and thus no #ifexists are necessary when {{ R from move}} is transcluded on mainspace redirects. That should keep 1080º Avalanche from linking to itself and becoming a false-positive on the linked misspellings list.
Then if we are on a talk page because the NAMESPACENUMBER=1 test was successful, then #ifexist: {{TALKPAGENAME}} becomes unnecessary. We know the TALKPAGENAME exists because we are on it right now... the fact that {{ R from move}} is sitting on the talk page means it exists!
Next I think you found that when we are on a subpage of a talk page (most often an archive), such as Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Archive 25, we should not populate Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. Instead of checking to see whether the corresponding mainspace page exists, why not check to see if we are on a subpage, and if so, we're done, as we don't want to put any subpages in Category:Unsynchronized talk page redirects. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I just noticed the red padlock on this template, and although the template itself is still just template-protected, I see the message:
"WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it because it is transcluded in the following page (which is protected with the "cascading" option enabled). Please ensure that you are following the protection policy."
Since that page was moved at 16:49, 20 November 2015, it is now transcluding {{ R from move}}. So because of this "cascading protection", I believe that you've been locked from editing {{ R from move}} since November 20. Can you confirm that? From the history, I see that you last edited this template on November 7.
Now, I go to that recently created {{ R from move}} redirect, and clicking on the "Change protection" dropdown, I see:
Change protection level for "Wikipedia:New admin/Protecting deleted pages/Transclusionist"
Please update the
protection templates on the page after changing the protection level. Note: If this page is protected due to office actions, do not unprotect it without proper authorization. |
and I see that the box for "Cascading protection (automatically protect any pages transcluded in this page)" is checked.
Now, if you and other template editors want to be able to edit Template:R from move again, I see two options:
Not knowing the full implications of removing cascading protection there, I'm thinking that the second choice might be safer. Wbm1058 ( talk) 17:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I found Martin's October 31 fix: HERE. The offending page was User:Chillum/Salt. I suspect you were locked out between Sept. 21 and Oct. 31. Who knows why cascade was checked on that page, as Martin said in his edit summary, "cascading presumably not needed". This will likely be an ongoing problem as admins randomly move pages with the cascading option checked on. That option being turned on by any admin-protected page transcluding {{ R from move}} is simply not compatible with template editors being able to edit the template. Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, the {R from move} template has a link to itself. So the pages that are redirects from a move due to a misspelling show up at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Linked_misspellings. An example page is 1998–99 Allied Dunbar Premership Two, which shows itself as the only namespace article that links to it ( [1]). Is there any way to make it so that this doesn't happen? Faceless Enemy ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ R from move}} on a page without a redirect can generate Category:Pages with script errors. It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category:Pages with script errors being flooded with errors. PrimeHunter ( talk) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Swisslog Holding" to "Swisslog", as this is the correct name of the company JulianJorns ( talk) 13:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
R from move}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 14:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)To editor Steel1943: Hey-de-hay, Steelman!
|from=a page that has been moved (renamed) or is the result of a page move |info=One reason this page was kept as a redirect is to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. Any redirect with a page move logged on its history page should be tagged with this rcat template.
Just added text to clarify the usage of this rcat template. Done this thousands of times to this and other rcats. You say "this wording addition needs discussion since it wasn't discussed and I don't agree with it". What exactly seems off the mark to you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Is [the] editor then expected to REMOVE the redirect from the main redirects-from-moves category and put it somewhere else?": Well ... with the exception of the "somewhere else" part (since to my knowledge, such an rcat doesn't exist yet), that's what I've been doing for a few years now, so it makes sense to me. I'd say it's akin to other situations where an rcat is changed on a redirect after the redirect's target has changed, such as when a redirect tagged with {{ R from unnecessary disambiguation}} gets retargeted to a disambiguation page and gets recategorized with {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} after its disambiguator becomes ambiguous. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)