MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext

"unless it is empty"
"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)

link to help page

 * copied from Village pump (technical)

It would be nice if the instructions that appear when you click on the "move" tab at the top of a page (taking you to Special:Movepage/PAGENAME) contained a link to meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Possible wording:


 * WARNING! 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 meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more detailed instructions.
 * (form here)
 * (form here)

I don't know if these instructions can be changed by sysops, or if it takes a developer, or what, so I am posting here rather than filing a bug report.

Zack 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Try MediaWiki:Movepagetext (protected). Bovlb 21:00:02, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
 * I've added the link as suggested at MediaWiki:Movepagetext. Messages such as this are contained in the MediaWiki: namespace, you can see all of them at Special:Allmessages. Almost all the messages are protected, but can be edited by admins. I've copied this discussion to MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext for reference, but for future reference the village pump is an apropriate place to propose changes such as this as the MediaWiki pages are not heavily watched. Thryduulf 21:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

id, formatting
Many interface messages (for example, MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext are wrapped in a  or   with an   attribute, to enable easy customization through user CSS. It would be convenient if this was done for this message also. The other  s seem to have the same or similar name to the MediaWiki page on which they appear, so   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)
 * ✅ Done. Used  as the id. –  Luna Santin  (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it can be updated automatically
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)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Redirect fixer has been disabled (41716), there is no "fix redirects" checkbox anymore, please update the message accordingly. —AlexSm 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Warn about user self-renaming
Since MediaWiki 1.15 (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)


 * Good idea; I added one. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwanted leftover redirects
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 Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_20. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to 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) 18:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which bot is updating them? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought only double redirects were fixed. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. I know these were updated (for a short time) by MediaWiki, but that was disabled a while ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope no bot is fixing these. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the edit request until the status quo can be clarified. Skomorokh 06:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm asking for an update of the message is because I at first misunderstood it. The message should convey "Links from other _articles_ to the old page title (the old page will be a simple redirect after the move) will _not_ be changed, but _redirects_ to the old page (redirects to the old page will be double redirects after the move) will be updated automatically by bot." I understand the case today as TheDJ: Namely only double redirects are fixed (according to MediaWiki:Movepage-moved).
 * So, new suggestion: "Links from other articles to the old page title will not be changed. Double redirects, as a result from the move, will be updated automatically by a bot." --Bensin (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment behind your suggestion, but I'm declining the editprotected request for now because I actually find that wording more confusing than the status quo. I suggest something like:
 * "Moving this page will create a redirect from the current title to the new one. Any titles that redirect to the current title will therefore become double redirects, which will be fixed by a bot shortly (although you can also fix them yourself). No other links will be changed, meaning pages that link to the current title will continue to do so but people who follow the link will be redirected to the new title."
 * That is probably too wordy however, and I think we should establish consensus on new version before changing the existing one. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Update link to WP page rather than MW
Could we change the link for further info from mw:Help:Moving a page to Help:Moving a page ? --Lee&there4;V < (talk • < contribs)  22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Only show sysop warning if sysop
Is there any reason not to put or something before the admin warning? ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

editprotected

It would be nice if we could hide the notice if the user isn't a sysop. I hope that code above works. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ And seems to work like a charm, too ;)  (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the "Note to admins" is not showing for me, is it showing for others? Tassedethe (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I think that the problem is the order of the attributes: those toward the left are overridden by those toward the right. That is, if were to be altered to, it should work. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "problem" is that this message is not used by MediaWiki anymore, the new message is Movepagetext-noredirectfixer, also see WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 96. — AlexSm 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer has now been created locally so this "feature" works again. I think it clutters Special:MovePage and hopefully admins would already know when or when not to suppress redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Local message
So, it seems we have no localized message being displayed any more. This has been brought up in Village_pump_(policy). I'm not exactly sure WHICH set of messages should be getting used in the software, between this one, and a recently removed page at MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer. Pings to other admins that have been involved:. Outside of any personal preferences, want to make sure it is clear if there is or is not localization available for the banner on Special:MovePage or not, and if not how to create/restore this. — xaosflux  Talk 15:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No opinion here; I'm not familiar with the setup. I've never done anything here except adding a link to existing text.  Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've restored MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer. If there's some problem with the message, please edit it but don't just delete it! There are several custom warnings that should be displayed. If it's so much a bother, these messages can be hidden with css/js.
 * With regard to the warning about moving without redirect, it is displayed to admins only since it's in "sysop-show". Cenarium (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I'm guessing this WILL NOT show to "global-rollbackers" who can also do this? — xaosflux  Talk 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, does this indicate that THIS page's message is NO LONGER used, so we can clear it/etc notate to other looking? — xaosflux  Talk 19:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Movepagetext-noredirectfixer transcludes this page (its content is ), so we can keep things that way, or move to the new one. Cenarium (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK that works, as far as displaying the section to more - any suggestions on options to how it based on the permission instead of a group? — xaosflux  Talk 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is will the Group-x.css system work for "global groups"? (May be able to experiment on testwiki later - no time right now). —  xaosflux  Talk 21:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted it because for about 4 years we used the MediaWiki default and there was seemingly no problem with that. Then a local message was apparently recreated without discussion (it's a bit hard to follow because the histories are split across several pages) and it bloated the move page form, causing the "move page" button to appear below the fold on several monitors I tried. Can someone explain why en specially needs a form for this? What is different about this project as compared to other Wikipedias when it comes to moving a page? If someone doesn't know when or not to suppress a redirect (or worse, as apparently suggested in the VP thread they might use it maliciously) then they shouldn't hold the permissions to make that decision. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sysop warning redux
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)
 * 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)
 * I'm working on a new .extendedmover-show class - then we can reincorporate this. — xaosflux  Talk 13:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)
 * Thanks. I was not exactly sure how all the classes worked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 June 2016
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)
 * ✅, updated. Thanks,  Nakon  22:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 July 2016
Okay two things here; Kharkiv07 ( T ) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) T19463 was marked as resolved several years ago, so that note can probably be removed
 * 2) 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


 * 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)
 * Support the second as well &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seems reasonable. — xaosflux  Talk 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 13 August 2016
A brief discussion happened at Wikipedia talk:File mover (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 and File mover. The suppression of file redirects seems like it should be discouraged per WP:R. (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)
 * 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)
 * , (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)

This has been open for a week. Any reason this is getting held up? Anything I should do to clarify? Let's go with: It is discouraged to suppress a file redirect upon file move.

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, especially 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.

Which preserves more of the original wording and removes the file redirect suppression suggestion. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * In terms of merits, I cited R#SUPPRESS, which linked to, and citing brion's post there in 2009: Note I will desysop anyone I see removing redirects without a very good reason -- it's extremely user-hostile and makes the project less useful. 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)

Proposal to add reference to Requested moves
We have developed a robust and active process at Requested moves. The page move dialogue currently states:

"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 Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions."

However, this does not adequately inform editors of the proper procedure that the community has developed, resulting in a lot of undiscussed or poorly noticed page moves being reverted. I propose that this should be amended to say:

"This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please make a request at Requested moves before moving a page with a longstanding title, a substantial number of incoming links, or if the move may be controversial for any other reason. Please read Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions."

Cheers! bd2412 T 17:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It warms my heart to see my adopted baby may soon be getting formal recognition in the MediaWiki move-page interface  wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:RM is already prominently linked in the lede (and various subsections) of Help:Moving a page, but it's nevertheless a good idea to add that extra reminder. However, I think it's slightly better to leave the first sentence as it is (it's the most general statement, and links to the most general page) and then append the bit about RM after it. Also I'm wary of trying to enumerate the situations in which RM should be used: if we're going to stick to a single sentence then I think it's best to move emphasis away from the particulars to something like:
 * "If the move is likely to be controversial for any reason (for example if the current title is a longstanding one), please make a request at Requested moves."


 * Also, I'd skip mention of the incoming links as a large number is not by itself indicative of the move being controversial. – Uanfala (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Help:Moving a page is primarily a source of technical advice, and gives a somewhat misleading impression that community consensus is unimportant in the page moving process (right now, it reads as if WP:RM is for people who lack automover rights). It seems unlikely that an editor who gets it in their head that, for example, they should move "Abraham Lincoln" to "Abraham Lincoln (president)" would find any caution from the suggestion to look at the help page. I have certainly seen a good number of poorly thought out moves that obviously were not swayed by the current language. Speaking of which, a large number of incoming links is definitely problematic if the move is being made to replace the existing article with a disambiguation page. I thought about specifically mentioning that (we have an ill-advised move of a primary topic to create a disambiguation page about every other day), but I thought that would be too busy. bd2412  T 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely! Incoming links are relevant only if the move is followed by the creation of a dab page. Only a tiny proportion of moves are like that. If we include mention of incoming links then we should be more specific about the circumstances in which they're relevant (not sure if we want to go into that much detail) or otherwise we'll be sending the majority of editors for a red herring. As for Help:Moving a page, it should maybe be edited too? – Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It should, but I remain dubious that editors will get the message from that link. I think that your proposed alternative language is reasonable. Of course, my most frequent exposure to errant moves is with disambiguation issues. bd2412  T 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything else before I ask for a close? bd2412  T 20:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit

 * Please update link target from  to  . Thank you,  -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2019
Please update the following two link targets,


 * From  to

and


 * From  to

Thank you for what you do :) - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I don't see a good reason to change the second one. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Question about suppressing redirects for files
Hi. According to Page mover, 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?

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)
 * 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)

Protected edit request on 5 February 2021
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)
 * ❌ the change doesn't make sense, specifically adding You can update redirects that point to the original title automatically.  There is no option on the Special:MovePage interface to do this. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I modified my version of the message, does this work? 54nd60x (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the links and notes to the redirect checking pages are fine, your other section doesn't make sense. You are both saying Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title. and This means that you can rename a page back to where it was renamed from if you make a mistake, and you cannot overwrite an existing page. 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)
 * Changed “you can rename a page” to “you cannot rename a page”. 54nd60x (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Backlink to WhatLinksHere?
Currently, it says this:

I think it should say this:

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)
 * 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  ), 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 , so I don't think there is a strong need for it before the move. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)