MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext

message: "Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is empty"
Does "empty" here mean the page is blank or the page doesn't exist ? I tried the former option and the move doesn't work. Jay 07:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "unless it is empty"

message: Please bypass meta redirect from meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page to meta:Help:Moving a page. -- ADNghiem501 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bypassing redirect 

message: Many interface messages (for example, MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext are wrapped in a  or  with an id attribute, to enable easy customization through user CSS. It would be convenient if this was done for this message also. The other ids seem to have the same or similar name to the MediaWiki page on which they appear, so movepagetext would presumably be OK for this one.
The current message also seems to have newlines in places where they aren't needed (since single newlines do nothing, they're not doing any harm, but they also seem somewhat pointless), and it uses both  and ; since it supports wikitext it might as well use  throughout – Gurch 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Used movepagetext as the id. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  id, formatting 

message: Please review this sentence "Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double redirects (using "What links here") after the move", because MediaWiki now can update it automatically. Take a look at the original MediaWiki's system message. Thanks. Vinhtantran (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now it can be updated automatically 

message: Since MediaWiki 1.15 (rev:46630) it is now possible to detect the namespace of the page being moved. This can be used e.g. to warn users about self-renaming, even before triggering Special:AbuseFilter/5. The code is below, it is tested and working fine in another WM project. The second ifeq is checking that it is not a user subpage. — AlexSm 04:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; I added one. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warn about user self-renaming 

message: Recently, several redirects were put up for RfD.. it seems they were leftovers as a result of not unchecking the "leave a redirect behind" box.. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_20#UBX:SRY. -- œ™ 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwanted leftover redirects 

message: Could we change the link for further info from mw:Help:Moving a page to Help:Moving a page ? --Lee∴V <(talk • <contribs) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update link to WP page rather than MW 

message: Is there any reason not to put  or something before the admin warning? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And seems to work like a charm, too ;) decltype (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only show sysop warning if sysop 

message: With the new page mover user right now in effect, is there any way to make it so that warning about the "leave a redirect behind" option can also be seen by those users? Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the class, making this now been seen by everyone - this could be revisited, but your note made me think about the another group that this applies to and has been recently discussed.  I'm certain open for further improvement by anyone that can be discussed here. — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a new .extendedmover-show class - then we can reincorporate this. — xaosflux Talk 13:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

text: this should now be showing for both pagemovers and sysops.  I don't think we have a good way to put class css's on globalgroups. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was not exactly sure how all the classes worked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysop warning redux 

message: Please change the "Note to admins and pagemovers" to "Note to admins and page movers", as this is the correct name of the user right. Thanks,
Omni Flames (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , updated.  Thanks, Nakon 22:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 June 2016 

message: Okay two things here;
#phab:T19463 was marked as resolved several years ago, so that note can probably be removed
#We now have official criteria for suppressing a redirect creation, so perhaps it can be rephrased to something like "The "leave a redirect behind" option should only be unchecked in situations outlined by the redirect suppression criteria as this will break any links to the current title and may make the page harder to find." or something similar
Kharkiv07 (T) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the first one, will leave the second to see what others think. That criteria is technically only for page movers, but maybe it will also be seen as a good rule of thumb for admins too. Jenks24 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Support the second as well — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Seems reasonable. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 5 July 2016 

message: Remove  because it duplicates MediaWiki:Moveuserpage-warning and leads to two warnings. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 17:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 17 July 2016 

message: A brief discussion happened at Wikipedia talk:File mover#Outdated instructions (permalink).
Please replace this large paragraph:
Leaving a redirect from the prior title to the new is the norm for page moves for various reasons, such as that the prior title often has numerous internal and incoming links that would be broken upon the move and that it may be a likely search term. By contrast, such concerns are not normally applicable to file titles, which are often only linked from the one or two pages on which the file appears. Accordingly, unless this file is included in many pages (check using what links here; do not rely solely on the file links at the bottom of the file page), please consider manually changing all links to the old title to the new title, and then moving the file without leaving a redirect behind. The option to leave a redirect behind is checked by default, and must be unticked if you take this course.
with something similar to:

It is discouraged to suppress a file redirect upon file move.

In most cases, the file redirect resulting from the move should remain on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.) or shadows a file on Commons.
The reason is that the current instructions here (added in 2010) is in conflict with WP:R#SUPPRESS and Wikipedia:File mover#File redirects. The suppression of file redirects seems like it should be discouraged per WP:R#SUPPRESS. (We wrap the redirect suppression instructions for sysops (and extendedmover filemovers) only here as well.) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: leaving the redirect seems fine - but why would we not want them to update the incoming file links anymore? — xaosflux Talk 11:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , (for reference,  suggested the original paragraph here in 2010) I mostly got that inclination per WP:NOTBROKEN, though it doesn't specifically mention file redirects. I haven't tested the behavior of file double redirects. If it's unclear, we can make the second paragraph instead: removed for navigability — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Andy I got your note on my talk page. I don't have time to think about this fully right now, and compose a full response (my time is very short), but my immediate reaction is what makes this change warranted because it is in conflict with the two links, rather than the two links being in conflict with this more logical six year old text? In other words, let's examine the underlying issue on its merits, rather than looking at the two opposite ideas just as conflicting provisions. If after considering the merits, the text should be made to comply with those raised, we should do that, and if not, some change may be warranted there, but don't make a change before examining the underlying issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  In terms of merits, I cited R#SUPPRESS, which linked to , and citing brion's post there in 2009:  But okay, I gave it some more thought, and since the additional current wording insists of doing this cleanup, suppose it's all right. And I guess WP:NOTBROKEN applies to articles, not files...? I decided to toggle this "not done" myself — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 August 2016 

message: *Please update link target from Help:Moving a page to Wikipedia:Moving a page. Thank you,  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 18:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Thank you :)  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: Please update the following two link targets,
*From moving this page to the Commons to moving this page to the Commons
and
*From TimedText to TimedText
Thank you for what you do :) - FlightTime (open channel) 23:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: I don't see a good reason to change the second one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, to each their own, but the link is already piped, so you're only changing the existing target and not expanding the link, I could see your point if my request was to extend the link (against WP:NOTBROKEN), anyway, thank you for your help. Cheers,  - FlightTime (open channel) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 April 2019 

message: Hi. According to Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria, suppressing a redirect for a reason that isn't listed as a criteria can result in the loss of page-mover rights. But, the "movepagetext" message (copied below) includes a suggestion that file movers suppress redirects as a matter of general practice - why is this included if it is not a part of the redirect suppression criteria?

Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed.
This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions.

Note to admins and page movers: The "leave a redirect behind" option should only be unchecked in situations outlined by the redirect suppression criteria as this will break any links to the current title and may make the page harder to find.


Its just confusing that it suggests suppressing a redirect, but says that suppressing a redirect should only be done in specific cases, which don't include general file moves. Am I missing something? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: back in the old days, file redirects didn't work - and then they didn't work reliably. This is probably a better discussion for Wikipedia talk:Page mover, that is to determine when file redirects should be suppressed.  Practically, if there is "low" usage and the usages are updated, it is reasonable to think that the redirect could be speedily deleted - so if it qualifies for CSD it should qualify for suppression as well. — xaosflux Talk 12:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about suppressing redirects for files 

message: Please import my changes from MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext/sandbox. I have noticed that the MediaWiki default seems to be longer in visibility, but because there are some important components in the current message I do not want to change, I added the components to the MediaWiki default and modified the message. 54nd60x (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the change doesn't make sense, specifically adding .  There is no option on the Special:MovePage interface to do this. — xaosflux Talk 12:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I modified my version of the message, does this work? 54nd60x (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  the links and notes to the redirect checking pages are fine, your other section doesn't make sense.  You are both saying  and  but those contradict - if the page will "not be moved" that doesn't result in a "this means that you can".  And if you can move it back, that doesn't mean that you can't.  Keep in mind that a page containing a redirect is still a "page". — xaosflux Talk 11:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed “you can rename a page” to “you cannot rename a page”. 54nd60x (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

text: that part still seems clumsy and doesn't apply in in some situations, may discourage some good faith moves and BOLD efforts.  I've added the helpful links to the tools you identified, some of the styling, and the extra cautions. — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 5 February 2021 

message: Currently, it says this:
:The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed.
I think it should say this:
:The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed.
I think this will work, but I have not confirmed it yet, so I am not going to use the edit-request template until I've done that. jp×g 22:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This will not work.  on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Example will say "MovePage/Example". There are ways to get "Example" from this (the message already uses #titleparts:), but some move links look like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Movepage&wpOldTitle=Example&wpNewTitle=Example2.  would only say "MovePage" here and I don't think it's possible in wikitext to get "Example". Most moves are probably made with links like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Example so I suppose we could analyze  and use the title when it's available. But it would give inconsistent move forms and risk confusing users. After the move you get MediaWiki:Movepage-moved which has the old title available as $3 and we do use it in links, so I don't think there is a strong need for it before the move. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlink to WhatLinksHere?