MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text

Create request
Per discussion at Template talk:R from move, create this page with as the contents. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Redr

 * 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.

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. 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)


 * Support as nom for reasons given above, especially that protected redirects from moves will be automatically sensed and categorized to appropriate protection categories. Thank you in advance for responding!   Paine   12:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I avoid this template because it hides information: you have to click “[show]” to see the category details. Is that intentional? Collapsing templates is useful on articles, because they are secondary information, but a redirect page should have nothing but redirect templates, so collapsing them is pointless and inconveniencing. Gorobay (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted above there is now an important reason not to avoid Redr, its protection-level sensing. The only reason it is collapsed is for editors (who have their preferences set to see hidden categories) to be able to see the categories at the bottom of the page at a glance and not have to scroll to the bottom to see them.  The more experienced editors do not have to read about the rcats and can determine if a redirect needs categories just by viewing the hidden ones at the bottom.  Since this issue has been raised before on the template's talk page, you should be aware that the collapsibility is easily reversible, and yet Redr is designed to save editors' time.  If editors must scroll down to see the categories, it will cost more editing time to do so.   Paine   21:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The category list at the bottom doesn’t show the values of parameters that e.g. and  use. That is why I don’t like the collapsing. Gorobay (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point for editors like yourself who need to check parameters as well as for correct categorization. Have you tried the common.css solution below from Wbm1058?  If this issue is addressed again on Redr's talk page and the consensus is to uncollapse, then that will be done.   Paine   04:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now why I was so puzzled about why the collapsing. I am configured to see hidden categories. I use a 24-inch monitor at 1920×1200 resolution (which is more pixels than HDTV 1920×1080) so I have a taller-view than most, probably. Looking at Ancient civilization, which has four r-cats with a lot of verbiage explaining them, when [show]ing the hidden text, I see all the way down to Wikimedia's fine-print links at the very bottom (Privacy policy • About Wikipedia • Disclaimers • Contact Wikipedia • Developers • Mobile view) and still there is a good 2 $7/8$ inches of blank, gray, empty nothingness before the bar at the bottom of my screen that has the Windows start button on the left. With the template collapsed, I see 5 $3/8$ of gray emptiness. This is why I'm so annoyed that so much of the Internet these days is being optimized for damn mobile phones. I just looked at this template's talk page for the first time, and saw: This brings to mind Template:Orphan, where we implemented special code for user's personal Special:MyPage/common.css to override the default and always show the orphan message-box even when it would normally be hidden. Perhaps similar code can override the default here, whether it's collapsing or not. The default should be by majority preference. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The following user CSS will suppress collapsing:
 * I tried adding this to my common.css and that the result was that all of the text always shown, and clicking [show] and [hide] does nothing other than flip the [show] to [hide] and back again. This works for me and is the perfect workaround to keep me happy. If you don't have a common.css page, just create one and put that one line of code in it and save it. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried adding this to my common.css and that the result was that all of the text always shown, and clicking [show] and [hide] does nothing other than flip the [show] to [hide] and back again. This works for me and is the perfect workaround to keep me happy. If you don't have a common.css page, just create one and put that one line of code in it and save it. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is implemented, it should be in the form, not . 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)
 * Shortcuts abound throughout Wikipedia and are used to save time and keystrokes. I've never had a problem with finding templates that were shortcutted, and I'm no Einstein – if I can do it, anyone can.  For this particular application, I am, however, not averse at all to the use of the full template name, since this page applies the templates automatically.   Paine   21:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Wbm1058. There's been a strong trend over the last 5 or so years to move away from gobbledygook template names to plain English ones, at least for templates intended to be directly used by editors. A  is a shortcut, not a template name. If you want a "Redr" shortcut to this, it should be a shortcut for keystroke reduction; we can and should expect things like AWB to bypass these redirects so that later, often brand new, editors are confronted with less gibberish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added notifications about this discussion to WP:VPT and Template talk:This is a redirect. Personally, I like the idea of using redr on moved pages due to the automatic protection detection. I think the template should be uncollapsed, though, as there won't be a lack of space on redirect pages, and it means one less click for people to make. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the added notifications!   I've gone ahead and recognized the consensus on this page and the one on the template's talk page and removed the collapsibility.  Unless a lot of editors chime in and say they want it back, Redr will no longer appear collapsed on redirects.   Paine   17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the value in it if there's a lot of rcats. Maybe make it collapsible if there's three or more? -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's a distinct possibility, especially if other editors also like the idea.   Paine   18:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is one disadvantage to which makes me a bit reluctant to see it become the de facto norm, namely the need to maintain the numbering of parameters. Compare   and  . 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)
 * That can be a concern for any template with numbered params, Peter, and it's a special concern in this case because of the large number of entries in . I know that a lot of work has been done with that category, as I see that now there are four subcats for fishes, fungi, plants and spiders.  I suspect that editors won't stop there and will build more subcats until the main cat is more manageable.  At that point there should be a lot less in the main cat, which will then mean that it will be much easier to catch it when and if editors change the sequence of rcats without maintaining the numbering of parameters.  The redirect would then go into the main cat, where a monitor can catch it and fix the redirect.  So this may be seen as a challenge that will eventually be neutralized when we get more subcats and deplete the main cat.   Paine   16:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gorobay. redr unnecessarily collapses important information, and that's not a good idea to promote. I see why it'd be useful when you have several rcats, but when there's only one, it's unnecessary. I'd also like to echo Wbm1058's comments that shortcuts should be used as little as possible in order to prevent possible confusion. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my above response to Mr. Stradivarius.  Paine   17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think an individual rcat is better than this template for readability purposes and for clarity. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Tavix. Would you mind elaborating?  I only ask because over the years I've been told that, among its other benefits, the This is a redirect template is a much better read than individual rcats, especially when there are more than one used to tag a redirect.  It may also help to remember that individual rcats cannot automatically sense protection levels.   Paine   18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point in the template except for "shortcutting" (ie: using "redr" instead of R from page move), and I'm sure you're aware that I'm not a fan of shortcutting templates. Someone editing the page should be able to know what's going on and using shortcuts in the redr template doesn't do our fellow editors any favors. It's a lot better for documentation purposes to use the full R from page move. Also, why would a template need to automatically sense protection levels? It's not like redirects are being protected all the time where it's an issue. Category:Protected redirects only has ~1,000 redirects... -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to examine this more closely, but the issue here is simply whether or not to use the This is a redirect on this page to apply the R from move rcat. "Shortcutting" is not the issue, so for whatever rationale you use, you have said you oppose the use of This is a redirect on this page and for now, we should leave it at that.  Thank you for coming and for explaining your reasoning.   Paine   01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is a redirect is perhaps useful when there are multiple tags (use when there are 3 or more rcats sounds reasonable per Tavix above), though I've never personally cared for it (the collapsing, visually in general, etc.), it is un-useful and perhaps even detrimental per Gorobay when there are only a couple or one. The automatic protection level sensing doesn't outweigh the problems with the This is a redirect template pointed out above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the This is a redirect template currently displays un-collapsed as default, barring the automatic sensing of protection levels, the only differences are cosmetic (in display, not markup of course), correct? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case where one rcat, R from move, is applied, the style difference is one of several differences. As Gorobay notes below, the This is a redirect template fulfills its initial purpose of standardization of redirect categorization.  As editors come across redirects from moves, they will determine if other rcats are needed and, if familiar with the This is a redirect template, they will find it easier and quicker to add rcats within that template.  So in my humble opinion, the protection-level sensing, an important improvement, is added to the already existing benefits of This is a redirect usage.  I will be first to admit:  I've put a lot of work into the template and so will perhaps sound less than objective about its application; however, I am still working to improve it to make it ever more useful to editors.   Paine   11:23, 16 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. should become  . Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea in your last sentence doesn’t scale well; see R from alternative language. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, you're right; another reason to come off the fence as per my later oppose. Parameterized R cats just don't sit well insider Redr. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Peter coxhead, it's been missed in the documentation for This is a redirect that full template names may be used. So  works just as well as  .  And the template has only two parameters, p# and n#, to handle just about anything rcats can dish out.  Yes, I use them everyday and even when parameters are needed, they usually just melt from my fingers onto the screen.  For me, it couldn't be simpler, and I'm no computer programmer, not by a longshot.  I'm still having trouble understanding Lua!  To me, this is the simplest way I've found so far to make This is a redirect a viable and useful template.  Can it be made even simpler?  I work on that almost everyday.   Paine   04:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but use the full syntax, not (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)
 * To answer your question, Plantdrew, uncollapsing by default has now been implemented. If you prefer the collapsed state under some circumstances, that can probably be done, too. Happy holidays!  Paine   01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I prefer uncollapsed personally. I thought there must have been some preference for collapsed that had lead to that being the (now previous) default. Plantdrew (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the real question is whether we can move beyond "I like it" vs "I don't like it", whether for the use of expanded/collapsed or for /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)
 * The benefit of using This is a redirect would be the automatic sensing of protection levels. Padlock should be and is generally applied to protected pages, which covers that issue. Protected redirects are seemingly uncommon per Tavix above; it already becomes clear rather quickly to editors when a page is protected, especially when it affects their ability to edit it, and the page logs must still be checkeed to find out why. Another assertion made is that it aids ease of use, with which I disagree. It is easier to apply a template as opposed to a parameter within a template (at least that was my experience when I was new to template functionality). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * well, we agree – but I already knew that :-). Peter coxhead (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock is not "generally applied to protected pages" - it has only seven transclusions. It's rarely used because scripts (Twinkle included) and the various bots that add protection icons do so by means of other templates - mostly those that wrap, such as , etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that specific template, my apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant that the small top icon padlocks or the larger banners are generally applied to protected pages either manually/semi-automated or by bots. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I in principle like the idea of a standard template for redirects, but the syntax is clunky and error-prone for parameterized rcats. It’s fine in this case though (automated, no parameters), so I don’t oppose this specific proposal. I prefer the more explicit This is a redirect to Redr. And don’t forget the blank line, which is currently missing. Gorobay (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If this proposal passes, I agree that using This is a redirect and clarifying that a blank line should be left between the redirect and the Rcat template are preferable conditions. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose After participating in this discussion and thinking more about it, I've decided to come off the fence and oppose the change. When there are multiple R cats, whether to use individual R cats or the Redr template should be left to editors to decide; we should not anticipate their decision when automatically adding one R cat. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not sure that I understand the proposal, so if my !vote is incorrect then I'll consider it a kindness for someone to change it for me. I oppose using this is a redirect when there are not already rcats on the page, because it's clunky and collapses things as other users have said. However I do think that R from move should be added automatically. If the software or a bot can tell the difference, then I'm all for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to change your !vote to "support", Ivanvector, but that wouldn't be comfortable. It would be better if you were to change it yourself.  I would also love to understand what is meant by "clunky", a term that has been used before to describe the template.  All it does is to standardize the appearance of one to seven rcats on a redirect.  In this particular application, it can make it easier for editors to add more rcats to a moved redirect.  It doesn't collapse things anymore, because its default is now uncollapsed.  What does "clunky" really mean as it applies to the This is a redirect template?   Paine   06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for the delay, I didn't get your ping. If it defaults to uncollapsed then that would solve what I called "clunky" appearance. I thought it clunky because it required clicking to see the categorizations, whereas using the "R from x" templates directly simply puts the description on the page. As long as the info is there and easily accessible, then yes, I think it's fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that is what you meant by "clunky". Thank you for your support, and I hope others will follow suit! Happy holidays!  Paine   10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - changed per above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as opposed to  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)
 * Well, it's not "resounding" support, it's just support. As in, go ahead, I don't think this will break things. For what it's worth I was referring exclusively to the appearance of the template, not how many characters it takes to key it into the editor. It's being done by machine anyway, so I don't think that matters. I don't really like the appearance of this is a redirect, but that's just a matter of opinion. I suppose what I find unappealing about it is all the box-drawing; the rcat templates just stick the text on the page, and most of the encyclopedia looks like that: mostly unadorned text laid out mostly bare, not all bounded by boxes and lines and stuff. But it's cosmetic; the functionality that goes along with "redr" does seem to be worthwhile. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ivanvector over the appearance: it's not in keeping with the usual WP style. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a little comment here from the one who looks forward one day to making the This is a redirect template usage the standard for tagging and categorizing redirects... Text on redirects is a relatively new idea, and the text provided by rcats and redr has been around a lot longer only in anticipation that text would be allowed on redirects at some point. Having a redirect page look "mostly unadorned" and "laid out mostly bare" "in keeping with the usual WP style" – is that really the style we want for redirect pages?  The This is a redirect template makes redirects look different for the distinct reason that they are redirects, not articles, not project pages – redirects.  Editors who come to these redirects should be able to tell at a glance that they have landed on a redirect page, and that is precisely why the This is a redirect looks distinct from "the usual WP style".  Redirects are very different from other types of pages, and a distinctive style will set them apart and make them easily recognized by editors. Happy holidays!  Paine   18:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what colour the bike shed is at this point. It's a good idea to tag redirects resulting from moves, and this is a redirect is functionally superior to the rcat templates, so let's use it. Its appearance can be debated later. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Random break

 *  Oppose for now Holding pattern while it's being re-coded . The template needs more work. It is: as Peter pointed out, too easily broken; as Wbm pointed out, too reliant on shortcuts that are gibberish to most people; and, as Gorobay et al. pointed out, it suppresses too much information.  I'll add to these concerns that it makes it too difficult to use the parameters of particular rcat templates. I regularly use the 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  and  (from which code can probably be ripped easily), wrapping entire rcat templates, instead of trying to subsume them:
 * See also how I wrote – it will accept input like, if the parameter matches a real template or template shortcut (in this case . But it also accepts  syntax. One thing it does not do is accept something like  as a string of multiple template calls; it treats the second parameter as a value for the first; i.e.  = . 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  instance: , 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  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)
 * I strongly support SMcCandlish's suggestion above. I would be much more inclined to use This is a redirect if it were simply a wrapper for a set of R templates which then retained their own syntax. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See also how I wrote – it will accept input like, if the parameter matches a real template or template shortcut (in this case . But it also accepts  syntax. One thing it does not do is accept something like  as a string of multiple template calls; it treats the second parameter as a value for the first; i.e.  = . 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  instance: , 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  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)
 * I strongly support SMcCandlish's suggestion above. I would be much more inclined to use This is a redirect if it were simply a wrapper for a set of R templates which then retained their own syntax. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See also how I wrote – it will accept input like, if the parameter matches a real template or template shortcut (in this case . But it also accepts  syntax. One thing it does not do is accept something like  as a string of multiple template calls; it treats the second parameter as a value for the first; i.e.  = . 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  instance: , 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  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)
 * I strongly support SMcCandlish's suggestion above. I would be much more inclined to use This is a redirect if it were simply a wrapper for a set of R templates which then retained their own syntax. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support SMcCandlish's suggestion above. I would be much more inclined to use This is a redirect if it were simply a wrapper for a set of R templates which then retained their own syntax. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your thoughts on this. The only issue you raise that seems to need to be addressed is how you think this template "hides" things.  I assume you refer to the previous condition of collapsing that sped things up when all an editor wanted to see were the bottom categories and did not want to have to scroll down through several rcat descriptions.  That has been altered as one result of this discussion, and the This is a redirect template no longer collapses.  Good faith!  Paine   15:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is the same issue that Gorobay & Mr. Strad (I think) had with it, but it seems resolved. Countervailingly, many might like it to have [collapse] link; if an editor is on a tiny netbook it might be slightly more expedient to collapse the box to see the categories than to scroll to them; that said, the annotations that are output by a few of these rcat templates badly need some concision work). Testing: I just sandboxed this a bunch of times and it still has some lingering output problems. The 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) there's a list generation problem if something doesn't come before the list.  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!
 * I have found through testing that the full template name enclosed in braces does work in the This is a redirect template. The parameter-separating pipes must still be used, and the 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:


 * ...works in a similar exactly the same way as:


 * It has been suggested on the talk page of the This is a redirect template that the seven parameters be replaced with one parameter in the same vein as templates Multiple issues and WikiProject banner shell, and I'm presently working on that project. Good faith!  Paine   06:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Further tests apparently show that the above is not entirely true, since I seem to have run into the same problem you did with the embed parameter. And I'm also finding superfluous double braces.  Workin' on it, boss!   Paine   06:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MW's template language is damned fiddly. Anyway, I guess I could get used to the second syntax if it can be made to work. I'm just so used to slapping on a  and moving on it will take some re-learning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)  See also: Template talk:Quote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tested new code in my sandbox (since you had edited the This is a redirect/sandbox code), and it is almost ready to use. I've altered the doc page (only the doc page) of the template sandbox to give more details.  I plan to open an informal discussion soon and will let you know when that has been done.  Thank you, all of you on this page, for spurring me on to improve the This is a redirect template!  Good faith!  Paine   18:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, feel free to wipe my sandboxing out. I was just testing one thing (which did not help) and forgot to reset it. I pasted your sandbox code into This is a redirect/sandbox; have at it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a redirect is creative, but it's not very user-friendly since it starts with some information collapsed by default. Steel1943  (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is no longer true. Gorobay (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck out part not true. Opinion still stands. Steel1943  (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.

Protected edit request on 7 November 2016
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)
 * Simple and likely non-controversial, so ✅. Others: feel free to revert and start discussion if I've misjudged the request and there is opposition. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2019
✅ ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The R from move should be surrounded using Redirect category shell.  Nixinova <b style=background:#006eff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the discussion about redr above. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
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 Village pump (technical)/Archive 176, 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... &  &  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)
 * could you (or anyone) elaborate on the benefits of rcat shell? I'm not opposed to the change, it seems harmless enough, but as someone who routinely uses rcatshell even I don't fully understand what we gain from it's automatic addition to moved pages. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for asking! One advantage, and no small one, is that protection levels are automatically sensed by the Rcat shell. So if a moved page is already protected, then it will be correctly lock-marked and sorted to protection categories. If protection levels are raised or lowered, these too will be sensed by the Rcat shell. And if a moved page is unprotected, and then it is later protected, it's still automatic, which means that admins won't have to take the step of manually categorizing the pages. I've been working with the Rcat shell for years and the This is a redirect template for many years before we created the shell, so I notice many other advantages that a more objective eye might not see as such. So I hope to get some of those eyes on this in order to find out if the shell should be used in a case like this. For example, I think it will make it easier for editors to add other appropriate templates within the Rcat shell, but an objective eye might disagree or be unable to see that as an advantage. Thank you for asking and for your support! A fuller range of advantages to usage of the Rcat shell can be found on its documentation page.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 00:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this change as a welcome enhancement. As a pagemover, I frequently re-edit the resulting redirect to add additional rcat tags, and it is a major pain to also have to add the Rcat shell (which requires an edit in two places, above and below the rcats). I believe all of the concerns from earlier discussions have been addressed by the current use of the rcat shell template as opposed to the now obsolete templates that were used in the past. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:07, 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 <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 10:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't adding the code to this page make all the cases where rcat shell already exists on a page become double-nested? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what is put on this page only effects the wikitext of newly-created redirects from moves, so there would be possibility of double-nesting. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean "no possibility", I assume? What about an existing redirect with rcat shell already on it, which is then moved to a different title? Would the resulting redirect end up with  for example? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If an existing redirect is moved to a different title, then the new title contains the exact wikitext of the old redirect (with its history), and the old title is created containing a redirect with just the contents of this message below it. There's no possibility for duplicate rcat shells because this message is never added to pre-existing wikitext. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I've got this entirely backwards. Thanks for putting up with my ignorance :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't see any reason why this isn't a good idea. Yeah, it adds some extra characters to new pagemove redirects, but we agreed long ago and best practice now supports wrapping rcats with the shell template, so if we don't do this then someone's eventually going to come by and wrap the R from move anyway, and then that also means regular editors can't move over the redirect because now it has history. I think I supported because "why not" before, but now I'm supporting because it's definitely an improvement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per Paine's response to my above question. Automatically sensing protection levels is a small but important advancement and prevents page histories from getting clogged. If a protecting admin has to add protection Rcats, that adds to the page history, and that prevents users from overwriting the redirect, even after the protection expires which is not ideal. That alone, I think, justifies the change. Shameless plug for those annoyed by the extra edits required to add rcatshell: The Capricorn user script automatically adds rcat shell, useful even after this change as it likely won't be added by those boldly redirecting articles, for example, and it also supports every Rcat. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It gets very tiresome to have to add this manually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Amory !  P. I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  put'r there 16:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 May 2022
Please revert Special:Diff/1086840051, which is causing the literal text to appear on redirects from page moves. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ BRD - follow up below please. — xaosflux  Talk 16:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any page in particular where it was happening? Izno (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The specific page I saw this on that prompted this request was later speedy deleted (I was editing it in order to add a speedy deletion tag), but see for one live example. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, totally unnecessary for the div to be added then in the first place. Izno (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)