MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved

Bugs
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: Title of page However, it works with the full URL, such as: check produces: check Anyway, a mostly working (except on the secure server, obviously) iteration of this can be seen at test.wp/MediaWiki:Movepage-moved --Splarka (rant) 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [ 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  though? Also, this should be fixed in the next scap? 23604. Also:  seems to work (example) --Splarka (rant) 01:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I closed the tag, and will keep an eye on the current revision 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? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh [ Yes], the revert link is screwed up. --Splarka (rant) 07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like 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 this version (minus the tests) for enwp (uses wikilinks, has the broken revert link commented out)? --Splarka (rant) 10:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I switched the links to wikiML, fixed the delete link by adding a hidden  at the end of the message for the JavaScript (which should be updated to use $1 again), and fixed the revert link with the  workaround template. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing tag and apostrophes
editprotected

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


 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
"Double-redirect" isn't written with a hyphen.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"check" link giving literal $4
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)


 * 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)


 * 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  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)

Convenience links
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: —AlexSm 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * «Special:Log/move»
 * «If you moved the page by mistake, you can undo it »
 * «If you do not need the old name (it was an implausible typo), you can mark it for deletion»
 * This requires template:db-redirtypo2 (or any other page as editintro) that contains something like this: "Add this to the text below:, click Save, and this redirect will soon be deleted by administrators."
 * «... or delete it if you are administrator»
 * This requires template:db-redirtypo2 (or any other page as editintro) that contains something like this: "Add this to the text below:, click Save, and this redirect will soon be deleted by administrators."
 * «... or delete it if you are administrator»
 * Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Double redirect check
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)

Don't rely on bots
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)


 * 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)

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: --Russ (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Done.--Patrick (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


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

Edit request - Don't redirect the old name
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 [ $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)
 * 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)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this in action, thanks! ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit link for original title
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 " [ edit] | " right after the first open parentheses - ( - on the page, found right after the first tag. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarify message
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)
 * This request is misplaced. I will move it shortly. --Bensin (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will place request at MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext instead. --Bensin (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Check for navbox template links
Shouldn't there be a reminder to change redirected links in navigational templates, per WP:R? -Set theorist (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The "mark for deletion" instruction
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 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)
 * 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.

Suggestion for fourth bullet point about disambig pages
I suggest a fourth bullet point be added: "* If you turn "[ $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= --Bensin (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 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)
 * Sure thing! Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Bensin (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When the page moved is a template...
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)

"delete" link for non-admins
Please wrap the "delete" link with  so it's not shown to non-admins. Rd232 talk 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why a ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This is how it presently looks; note, I have deactivated the "delete" and "revert" links per WP:BEANS:

✅ The page "[ Foo]" (links | [ delete] ) has been moved to "[ Foobar]" ([ edit] | [ history] | links | [ revert] | log)
 * This is how it would look with a ; note, I have omitted the  styling so that the differences are visible to non-admins:

✅ The page "[ Foo]" (links | [ delete] ) has been moved to "[ Foobar]" ([ edit] | [ history] | links | [ revert] | log)
 * The  element is block-level, so by default it forces linebreaks before and after, as shown above. This is how it would look with a ; again, the   styling is omitted:

✅ The page "[ Foo]" (links | [ delete] ) has been moved to "[ Foobar]" ([ edit] | [ history] | links | [ revert] | log)
 * There are no superfluous linebreaks here, because the  element is inline. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The span and div versions look the same to me. But sure, use span then. Rd232 talk 22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. There still seems to be a space after "links" for non-admins, but I don't seem to be able to fix that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Edit button for first page
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 (links &#32;| [ delete] by this (links | [ edit] &#32;| [ delete]

Regards. --Vivaelcelta {talk &middot; &#32; contributions} 15:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I take note. Then I propose this change. --Vivaelcelta {talk &middot; &#32; contributions} 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been three months and nobody have opposed. So I think this change can be made.--Vivaelcelta {talk &middot; &#32; contributions} 08:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk &middot; &#32; contributions} 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2015
Please change  to refer to the new page instead (  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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

"Log" links
Suggesting two related changes: 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)
 * 1) From   to , since the final "log" link (Special:Log/move) has no specific relation to the second article.
 * 2) Then add   back to the $4 set, linking to   - a link that shows all public logs for that page.

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

with

I think that's right. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case it should be "logs", not "log". Ruslik_ Zero 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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)

Protected edit request on 26 May 2016
If page $3 was moved without leaving a redirect, a redlink should be shown. Can you please replace  with  ?

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tested this change and it doesn't appear to break anything. I'll be implementing this change provided there are no further objections.  Thanks,  Nakon  00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nakon  04:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I attempted to deploy this on en.wiki and was unable to verify functionality. This will need further review before additional deployment attempts.   Nakon  04:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deactivated the edit request marker for now, after these issues are resolved you may reactivate it. — xaosflux  Talk 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 26 June 2016
There are occasions when a left-behind redirect is retargeted to a disambiguation page (or to a section on a disambiguation page), so please edit the following: If you turn "[ $3]" into a disambiguation page, please [//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php?title= disambiguate the links] from other pages that point to it. with the additional text, "or into a redirect that targets a disambiguation page" as follows: If you turn "[ $3]" into a disambiguation page or into a redirect that targets a disambiguation page, please [//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php?title= disambiguate the links] from other pages that point to it. to appear as:
 * If you turn "[ $3]" into a disambiguation page or into a redirect that targets a disambiguation page, please [//tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php?title= disambiguate the links] from other pages that point to it.

Example: If Foo (ambiguous) were moved to Foo (more focused), it may be that the redirect left behind should be retargeted to Foo (disambiguation). In such a case, it would be necessary to disambiguate the links to the left-behind redirect even though it hasn't itself been turned into a disambiguation page. Thank you in advance! What's in your palette?  Paine  04:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with making this edit, leaving this request open for a bit more so any additional comments can be added. Thanks,  Nakon  00:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problemo, Nakon, I have added this also to this section of the Requested moves closing instructions, as well. What's in your palette?  Paine   00:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me - no risk one way or the other, this could easily be reverted or further adjusted. — xaosflux  Talk 00:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 02:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, xaosflux !  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   05:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional message after moving a page
I recently moved a page and was presented with the message here: MediaWiki:Movepage-moved, as is expected. However, below that message there was also the text:
 * A redirect has been created.
 * Your move should now be reflected in the Wikidata item language link. We ask that you check this has occurred. (with a link to Wikidata)
 * The page Talk: has been moved to Talk: .

Can someone tell me where this additional message is stored? I wish to suggest improvements to the wording of the message on its talk page. --Bensin (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to the talk
If you are an administrator and want to move a page creating togheter a redirect you have, first to move the page without the talk creating the redirect, and, second you have to go to the talk and move it without creating the redirect. A link to the talk of the moved page should be, so, very useful--Pierpao (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Please can you paraphrase what you mean? –Ammarpad (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 September 2018
This is an established message page, navigation links should be updated. Please change  to. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 20:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The current link is WP:NOTBROKEN &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 00:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata label
I would suggest adding a bullett point that recommends considering whether Wikidata label should be updated too.-- 3knolls (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * please make the edit you would like to see in the sandbox then reactivate this request (change answered to 'no'). — xaosflux  Talk 20:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking double redirects and disambiguation
I'm proposing a change to the text of this page, please see Wikipedia talk:Moving a page. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Displaytitle
Currently most of the additions to the category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications seem to be caused by page moves without proper cleanup. So I suggest adding a bullet point: "If the page has a manual DISPLAYTITLE modification, please ensure that it is valid". --bdijkstra (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "... please update it" be clearer? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. --bdijkstra (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's already a bullet point about updating WP:SORTKEYs, wouldn't it make sense to adjust or add to that, since it considers DEFAULTSORT? ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 11:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, DISPLAYTITLE and DEFAULTSORT are not the same thing. --bdijkstra (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True. Perhaps Amorymeltzer misread the proposal. In any case, we could add the sentence on to that same bullet point, rather than making a new one? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be confusing, as they are two very different things. Might as well add it to the first bullet. --bdijkstra (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware they're different, but the underlying issue is essentially the same thing: a behavior switch magic variable that likely needs changing. This is a large message already, and saying something like "Check and update any magic words, such as DEFAULTSORT and DISPLAYTITLE." would be tighter. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. --bdijkstra (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the version at MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved/sandbox? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 11:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many magic words, the two mentioned are the only ones that are relevant to a page move. So I suggest to change that second sentence to: "Check and update the magic words DEFAULTSORT and DISPLAYTITLE." --bdijkstra (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes
There is a proposal for an overhaul of this message, see Village pump (proposals). – Uanfala (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2022
Hello! Sufficient consensus was gained through a Village Pump post regarding making this message more concise.

This change: This edit makes the template more concise, and reduces banner blindness by only showing the most crucial messages. Please copy this page over to the main; here's a diff of the changes. If you implement this edit, please also consider implementing this request, guided through the same proposal. Thank you for your consideration! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 02:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * combines the notes regarding non-free fair use rationales and disambiguation links, making them more concise and precise to the exact case where fixing is needed (a change in the content of a page).
 * removes the note about double redirects. Multiple bots already work to fix this task automatically; see this section. Per WP:BOTDEF, After launching the bot, an assumption can be made that there is no further need for human decision-making. Protected double redirects can be fixed through human decision making later on through Special:DoubleRedirects or a database query.
 * Makes the non-free fair use rationale note more precise. Per the non-free use rationale guideline, A redirect pointing to the page where the non-free content is intended to be used is acceptable as the article name in the non-free use rationale. If an article is...renamed later on, there is no need to update the fair use rationale (trimmed).
 * removes the link to the disambiguation fixer as it is often down and fixing the links manually or via another semi-automated tool is enough; additionally, editors other than the mover can fix these links, and those editors likely will already know of the tool.
 * adds a link to post-move cleanup instructions for more information if needed.
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Incoming redirects
Rather than
 * the incoming redirects (wikitext: )

would it be more helpful to show
 * [ the incoming redirects] (wikitext: )?

That would be equally concise, and provide an easy way to check for double redirects which should be bypassed or improved. I don't think we'd lose much: an editor who moves pages without knowing about redirects might be unlikely to clean up properly anyway. Ideally we'd only show the message if such redirects actually exist, but I don't think that's possible. Certes (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 16:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mocked up in the sandbox. Certes (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely going to be better. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ let me know if any issues. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2023
Can the edit request located at "MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved" please be performed? In other words, can verbiage please be added to this notice instructing editors to update the  parameter if the page moved is a navigation box or a navigation sidebar? Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * please make all the changes you are proposing in the sandbox here: MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved/sandbox, then reactivate the edit request above. — xaosflux  Talk 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No thanks! I can't stand trying to figure out this namespace. Let it ride... Steel1943  (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Links in navigational templates
Hello. I am planning to update the message with "Update navigational templates in the moved article or page to wikilink directly to the new title." (or something along this line). I wanted to check everyone is ok with this change before I implement it. --TadejM my talk 12:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The current, simplified, wording is from above and the discussion that preceded it. The fixing of links in navboxes wasn't specifically discussed there, but it would still need some sort of consensus before getting added. Personally, I think it shouldn't be: the system message is directed primarily at inexperienced users and so should present a very short list of the most important things to fix: make it too long, and users will ignore it. What may be done, though, is to add a pointer to Cleaning up after a move, which gives a fuller set of instructions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up after a move is already linked in the page. Frostly (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)