Archives

MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved/MediaWiki talk:Pagemovedtext

Some of the message parameters here (previously on MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext) still seem very broken (as of this posting). $1 and $2 work fine as full links to the previous (with &redirect=no) and current page. But $3 and $4, which return the plain text of the page names, don't work in most link wikicode (fullurl, localurl, or even [[bracket]] links). For example:

*[[$3]]
  produces:
<a href="/w/index.php?title=%243&action=edit" class="new" title="Title of page">Title of page</a>

However, it works with the full URL, such as:

[http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/$4 check]
  produces:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Title of Page" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Title of Page" rel="nofollow">check</a>

Anyway, a mostly working (except on the secure server, obviously) iteration of this can be seen at --Splarka (rant) 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed for now using external link syntax. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:44:01, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a clever work-around. I think you forgot the closing </div> though? Also, this should be fixed in the next scap? rev:23604. Also: {{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target=$3}} seems to work (example) --Splarka (rant) 01:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I closed the tag, and will keep an eye on the current revision (1.44.0-wmf.8 (f08e6b3)) before updating the messages and documentation. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:50:30, 03 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just got a pretty weird move message when moving a page with multiple words in its title. I think there is something wrong with the tokenization? — brighterorange (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh Yes, the revert link is screwed up. --Splarka (rant) 07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like rev:23604 fixed the wikilink problem, but $3 and $4 still cannot be used in external links or parserfunctions, making the revert link unfixable. PathosChild: maybe grab (minus the tests) for enwp (uses wikilinks, has the broken revert link commented out)? --Splarka (rant) 10:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the links to wikiML, fixed the delete link by adding a hidden <span id="specialDeleteTarget" style="display:none;">$3</span> at the end of the message for the JavaScript (which should be updated to use $1 again), and fixed the revert link with the {{MediaWiki revert move link}} workaround template. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add 3 closing apostrophes after "the following text:", and remove the extra closing div tag (</div>). Thanks! Korg (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} "Double-redirect" isn't written with a hyphen. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my recent moves (yesterday and today), this page has yield a "please check" link that shows me what links to $4, not what links to the page I moved. Firefox 2.0.0.11 under Windows XP, but nothing seems to have changed since it was last working. I can't figure out where the parameters are coming from, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the new parser — we switched to it on Friday. No idea how to fix it, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Special:Whatlinkshere links simply by reverting them to ordinary wikilinks with no kluges. The revert link seems to be broken beyond repair though: it seems interface parameters ($1, $2, etc.) just won't work inside {{urlencode:}} anymore. I've commented out the revert link and have filed a bug report on meta. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing the same system message in another projects, then looked here and was surprised that this one doesn't have some useful links:

• «Special:Log/move»
• «If you moved the page by mistake, you can undo it»

  [{{fullurl:Special:Movepage|wpOldTitle={{urlencode:$4}}&wpNewTitle={{urlencode:$3}}&wpReason=undo&wpMovetalk=1}} undo].

• «If you do not need the old name (it was an implausible typo), you can mark it for deletion»

  [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{urlencode:$3}}&action=edit&editintro=template:db-redirtypo2&preview=no mark it]

  This requires template:db-redirtypo2 (or any other page as editintro) that contains something like this: "Add this to the text below: <charinsert>{{db-redirtypo}}</charinsert>, click Save, and this redirect will soon be deleted by administrators."

• «... or delete it if you are administrator»

  [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{urlencode:$3}}&action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:[[WP:CSD#R3|R3]]: implausible typo}} delete]

—AlexSm 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if the check link went to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/%243&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 . If you're looking for double redirects, you only need to show redirects. Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the text that says that a bot will fix double-redirects, and instead revise the message to urge strongly that the user who moves a page fix all double-redirects. The code that generates Special:DoubleRedirects runs only once every 3 days (usually) on this wiki, and is limited to reporting 1,000 redirects at a time. Wikipedia has gotten so large that this often isn't enough, and many double-redirects don't make it onto the list of 1,000 and therefore don't get fixed. Encouraging users to "let a bot do it" just makes the problem worse. --Russ (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue, it shouldn't be hard to write a bot that does this by monitoring the RC feed instead. I can set one up in a few days if there's need for it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Since the above was posted, the MediaWiki software has been upgraded so that it automatically fixes redirects created by page moves. See User:Redirect fixer. Therefore, the discussion of double-redirects in this message is no longer necessary. Specifically, please delete the following portion of the text:

Please '''<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/$3|hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1}} check]</span>''' whether this move has created any [[Wikipedia:Double redirects|double redirects]], and fix the most serious ones. For this purpose, you can use the following text:''' <center><span style="font-family:monospace"><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[$4]]</nowiki></span></center> A [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]] will fix the rest within a few days.

--Russ (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to leave it in for a while, to make sure people do check still and in case people don't know about the new feature (you do have to check the box to make it happen). Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for a week or so. This is still a recent addition. At the moment, the tickbox is checked automatically by the software, so I don't see any foreseeable problems once people are used to it. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two weeks; no one (that I know of) has objected to the proposed change (deletion), which I also support. There no longer is a reason to warn editors about how the move might have created double-redirects (because the software fixes them), and while the bots are still functional and in use (because double redirects can be created other ways - such as directly editing a redirect), mentioning them to editors who have done a move isn't necessary. Let's simplify things (for editors), now that this new feature is working.

And yes, if people untick the checkbox, then a move could create a double redirect. But realistically, that's not going to happen very much, and when it does - presumably by an inexperienced editor - they're not going to check for double redirects anyway, no matter what a message says. (By contrast, if an experienced editor deliberately unchecks the tick box, he/she presumably will check for double redirects, and will know how to do so.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Patrick (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

When someone moves a page, links to the new and old location are displayed. The new location has &redirect=no appended at the end, while the old target does not. That's backward, is it not? The old page should be the one that denies the redirect, as the move turns it into a redirect to the new location. That new location should not need a redirect=no parameter as it is where the content will now reside. I'm no expert, but I presume it should be done by replacing the first mention of [[:$3]] with [{{fullurl:$3}} $3]. The reverse can be done for $4, but that is not necessary aside from achieving perfect clarification. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are archives here. This was actually done/suggested twice before, many years ago. But afaict those issues have been cleared up, as it was done simply to avoid a redlink for $4. It also seems to have been around for a moment or two in June 2007. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this in action, thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, can we put a direct edit link in for the original location? It would make cleaning up with R3 one click easier for non-sysops, and could be useful if someone wished to immediately make the redirect an article. Not huge reasons but hey, it's free. All that would need to be done would be to put "[{{fullurl:$3|action=edit}} edit] | " right after the first open parentheses - ( - on the page, found right after the first <small> tag. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update "Links to the old page title will not be changed." to "Links from other articles to the old page title will not be changed, but redirects to the old page will be updated automatically by bot." or some other clarification. --Bensin (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is misplaced. I will move it shortly. --Bensin (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will place request at MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext instead. --Bensin (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a reminder to change redirected links in navigational templates, per WP:R#Bypass redirects in navigational templates? -Set theorist (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a review of recent nominations using the {{db-redirtypo}} tag, a very high proportion are being declined and the redirect kept. In my own review covering about two weeks of patrolling at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, exactly two such nominations were granted, the rest being declined either because the history prior to move made the page ineligible under the "recently created" clause of CSD#R3 or because the original title was not as implausible as the nominator thought. (Another three redirects were deleted but they were really G7 cases - one author at the original page correcting own mistake.) A review of the deletion log for deletions executed with the R3 justification also shows a significant proportion (some days as much as half) being improperly deleted under the wording of that criterion.

When asked about the nominations, several have pointed back to this instruction on the "successful move" page. I strongly agree that we should be coaching and teaching new users about Wikipedia policies and practices when they are being inappropriately applied. But we ought not to be baiting them into violating those practices. This was not a few isolated users misunderstanding the instruction.

I am removing the line about tagging the redirect for deletion for now. The evidence shows that it is counter-productive. It could be remediated instead by adding the language that currently shows up in the "note to Admins" about unchecking the "leave a redirect behind" option (copied below for convenience). That would make it clearer that only the truly implausible and unhelpful redirects should be so tagged but I think that would add unnecessary clutter to this page. Simpler just to leave it off and let the few truly implausible redirects get found and cleaned up later. Rossami (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from MediaWiki:Movepagetext
Note to admins: The "leave a redirect behind" option should only be unchecked when reverting pagemove vandalism, userfying a deleted article, or if there is a very good reason to do so, as this will break any links to the current title, and may make the page harder to find.

I suggest a fourth bullet point be added:

"* If you turn "[{{fullurl:$3|redirect=no}} $3]" into a disambiguation page, please disambiguate the links from other pages that point to that page."

It would also be nice if the words "update the links" link to the Disambig fix tool: http://toolserver.org/~dpl/dab_fix_list.php?title=<name of page> --Bensin (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've added a link to the disambiguation tool as well. I've tested the basic code, but the disambiguation tool link still needs to be tested by moving a page in mainspace that has had links pointing to it for a little while. (I tested it with a newly-created and newly-linked-to page, but the replication lag for the disambiguation tool is almost 8 hours at the moment.) If you notice any bugs, let me know straight away. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested the disambiguation tool link and it works fine. Is there any way to send a user who is logged in on Wikipedia's secure server to the toolserver's secure connection? --Bensin (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Bensin (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to suggest that when this "Moved succeeded" page is shown after a template has been moved, the bullet points in the "Please clean up after your move" box include something like:

• If this template is built using a template such as Template:Navbox, Template:Sidebar or Template:Infobox (or one of their derivatives), please update its name parameter to the template's new name.

CsDix (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please wrap the "delete" link with <div class="sysop-show" style="display: none;"> so it's not shown to non-admins. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why a <div>...</div>? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you do it? I don't mind - the point is to get the CSS class in there. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it presently looks; note, I have deactivated the "delete" and "revert" links per WP:BEANS:

This is how it would look with a <div>...</div>; note, I have omitted the style="display: none;" styling so that the differences are visible to non-admins:

The div element is block-level, so by default it forces linebreaks before and after, as shown above. This is how it would look with a <span>...</span>; again, the style="display: none;" styling is omitted:

There are no superfluous linebreaks here, because the span element is inline. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The span and div versions look the same to me. But sure, use span then. Rd232 ^talk 22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There still seems to be a space after "links" for non-admins, but I don't seem to be able to fix that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest add a Edit button for first page, because the first page is a mistake uncommon or the first page will be converted in a disambiguation page. I propose change this code

 <small>([[Special:WhatLinksHere/$3|links]]<span id="specialDeleteLink" class="sysop-show" style="display: none;"> | [{{fullurl:$3|action=delete}} delete]</span>

by this

 <small>([[Special:WhatLinksHere/$3|links]] | [{{fullurl:$3|action=edit}} edit] <span id="specialDeleteLink" class="sysop-show" style="display: none;"> | [{{fullurl:$3|action=delete}} delete]</span>

Regards. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 15:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take note. Then I propose this change. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: It has been three months and nobody have opposed. So I think this change can be made.--Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 08:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please change [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/$3|hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1}} Check what links here] to refer to the new page instead ([{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/$4|hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1}} Check what links here] if I am not mistaken) because the instructions for cleaning up double redirects describe the output of using that tool on the page itself rather than on the newly-created redirect. Pathore (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's working correctly - I often use it myself. The point is to fix the redirs that point to the old page name, which is $3. Redirs that point to the new name ($4) probably won't exist, apart from the one just created by the page move; and any others should stay as they are, per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a move, single redirects to the old name become double redirects to the new name. The instructions for fixing double redirects describe how to recognize double (and more) redirects. On the list of links to the old name, redirects pointing to the old name, that just became double redirects to the new name, will appear as single redirects to the old name. According to the instructions, such redirects do not need to be fixed because they are not indented in the list. But the instructions describe the list of links to the new name, where a redirect to the old name will be both indented and marked as a "(redirect page)". Pathore (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it gives a list of all the redirects to the old name that either need retargetting to the new name, or perhaps repurposing. The idea is that you work through every item on the list. If the list were to be based on what links to the new name, people may assume that every link listed should similarly be amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is not consistent with the instructions to which it links as both are currently written. The instructions don't describe a list of redirects to the old name, where each item at top-level is a concern; they describe the list of redirects to the new name, where double redirects are both indented and labeled "(redirect page)". The instructions specifically say that Direct links from redirect pages (not indented; labelled "(redirect page)") are not broken. This is correct if you are looking at the list for the new name, but gives a false indication of "no problem" if you are looking at the list for the old name.

I made this edit request after doing my first page move where redirects were a potential problem and getting somewhat confused that, according to the instructions, there were no double redirects, yet I knew there had to be double redirects because I knew there had been redirects to the old name. Pathore (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting two related changes:

1. From "$4" (edit | history | links | revert | log) to "$4" (edit | history | links | revert) (move log), since the final "log" link (Special:Log/move) has no specific relation to the second article.
2. Then add | log) back to the $4 set, linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page={{tl|urlencode:$4}} - a link that shows all public logs for that page.

I occasionally click the "log" link after I've moved a page, to check whether I've just moved something to a name that has a long history of deletion (expecting it to show the same page I get when I click "View logs for this page" on a page's edit history) and it obviously never works. Seems like it might be generally useful to have such a link. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should make that a formal edit request. So, replace

has been moved to "'''[{{fullurl:$4}} $4]'''" <small>([{{fullurl:$4|action=edit}} edit] | [{{fullurl:$4|action=history}} history] | [[Special:WhatLinksHere/$4|links]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Movepage|wpOldTitle={{urlencode:$4}}&wpNewTitle={{urlencode:$3}}&wpReason=revert&wpMovetalk=1}} revert] | [[Special:Log/move|log]])</small>

with

has been moved to "'''[{{fullurl:$4}} $4]'''" <small>([{{fullurl:$4|action=edit}} edit] | [{{fullurl:$4|action=history}} history] | [[Special:WhatLinksHere/$4|links]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Movepage|wpOldTitle={{urlencode:$4}}&wpNewTitle={{urlencode:$3}}&wpReason=revert&wpMovetalk=1}} revert] | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page={{urlencode:$4}} log]) ([[Special:Log/move|move log]])</small>

I think that's right. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it should be "logs", not "log". Ruslik_Zero 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've kept it as "log", as I think it should be singular. The move log may have many entries for many different pages, but it's still just one log. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]