On 06/11/2007, catrope@svn.wikimedia.org catrope@svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
Revision: 27267 Author: catrope Date: 2007-11-06 16:14:24 +0000 (Tue, 06 Nov 2007)
Log Message:
APIEDIT BRANCH MERGE: Making redirect creation on page move optional.
This should not be an option which we encourage the use of; moving pages without updating redirects breaks incoming links from all other sources, and is not a particularly clever idea for any web site.
Rob Church
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
This should not be an option which we encourage the use of; moving pages without updating redirects breaks incoming links from all other sources, and is not a particularly clever idea for any web site.
It's not exposed in the normal interface, of course. I'm not sure why it's wanted for the API, though.
On 06/11/2007, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
This should not be an option which we encourage the use of; moving pages without updating redirects breaks incoming links from all other sources, and is not a particularly clever idea for any web site.
It's not exposed in the normal interface, of course. I'm not sure why it's wanted for the API, though.
My concern is that if it's available in the backend, then it's only a matter of time before some bright spark implements it in the UI as a "trivial enhancement".
Rob Church
My concern is that if it's available in the backend, then it's only a matter of time before some bright spark implements it in the UI as a "trivial enhancement".
Hmmm, maybe a checkbox next to Minor and Watch? ;)
-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
This should not be an option which we encourage the use of; moving pages without updating redirects breaks incoming links from all other sources, and is not a particularly clever idea for any web site.
It's not exposed in the normal interface, of course. I'm not sure why it's wanted for the API, though.
My concern is that if it's available in the backend, then it's only a matter of time before some bright spark implements it in the UI as a "trivial enhancement".
Rob Church
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
This should not be an option which we encourage the use of; moving pages without updating redirects breaks incoming links from all other sources, and is not a particularly clever idea for any web site.
It's not exposed in the normal interface, of course. I'm not sure why it's wanted for the API, though.
My concern is that if it's available in the backend, then it's only a matter of time before some bright spark implements it in the UI as a "trivial enhancement".
Rob Church
Hmmm, maybe a checkbox next to Minor and Watch? ;)
-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
I think this feature can be useful when mass-moving internally-used stuff (subpages, templates, etc.). Deleting the created redirects afterwards would result not only in twice as many requests, but also in adding entries to the page, revision and pagelinks tables which are removed almost immediately after. Of course, redirect suppression is *not* default behavior, as it's undesirable in many cases.
I agree that it shouldn't be recommended for pages that someone could link to, but for other pages (portal subpages like [[w:Portal:Visual Arts/RelatedPortals]], template subpages, misspelled titles like "List of kings of Denmrak") it's my opinion that users should be allowed to suppress redirect creation from the UI. Of course this should be accompanied (both in the UI and in the API usage and docs) by a lot of warning signs recommending against real articles being moved this way, urging the user to check whatlinkshere for the deleted redirect and remind them about external pages that might link to their wiki.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
On 11/6/07, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@home.nl wrote:
I think this feature can be useful when mass-moving internally-used stuff (subpages, templates, etc.).
Why don't you just leave the redirects? Is it going to hurt anything? Maybe someone remembers the old page name and types it in manually, links or not, and is puzzled when it shows up nothing (and doesn't think to check the move log, since after all, moves leave redirects, right?).
I don't see why this is useful functionality.
Simetrical schrieb:
I don't see why this is useful functionality.
E.g. for import of articles. de.wp uses Special:Import to import articles from different languages. After the import it is mostly necessary to move the imported article to a German article name.
The redirect is completely useless and has to be deleted. I would be glad if we could suppress the redirect at time of moving.
Raymond.
On 11/7/07, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com wrote:
E.g. for import of articles. de.wp uses Special:Import to import articles from different languages. After the import it is mostly necessary to move the imported article to a German article name.
The redirect is completely useless and has to be deleted. I would be glad if we could suppress the redirect at time of moving.
This strikes me as a situation where the best thing to do would be to fix Special:Import. Besides, nobody's talking about exposing this through the user interface at the moment.
To paraphrase something Brion once said, deleting redirects is normally a big "screw you" to third parties. If really nobody can really come up with any reasonable use-case for this, I would say this would best be reverted.
Simetrical schrieb:
This strikes me as a situation where the best thing to do would be to fix Special:Import.
I tried it with r24237 but was reverted by Brion with r24250 :-(
Besides, nobody's talking about exposing this through the user interface at the moment.
I thought about it but know the WONTFIX bug. *hides*
To paraphrase something Brion once said, deleting redirects is normally a big "screw you" to third parties. If really nobody can really come up with any reasonable use-case for this, I would say this would best be reverted.
I like the idea to suppress redirects as an option (by default off) ... Just my 2 cents :)
Raymond.
Simetrical wrote:
On 11/6/07, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@home.nl wrote:
I think this feature can be useful when mass-moving internally-used stuff (subpages, templates, etc.).
Why don't you just leave the redirects? Is it going to hurt anything? Maybe someone remembers the old page name and types it in manually, links or not, and is puzzled when it shows up nothing (and doesn't think to check the move log, since after all, moves leave redirects, right?).
I don't see why this is useful functionality.
Think in a bot autoreverting moves where the target page name contains "on wheels" (and a bot with admins powers to delete the redirect pages is a heresy on some wikis). You obviously not want the redirect when randomvandal redirects your userpage to User:Evil_admin (as examples, see http://es.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ALog&type=move&... 7 oct)
On 11/13/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Think in a bot autoreverting moves where the target page name contains "on wheels" (and a bot with admins powers to delete the redirect pages is a heresy on some wikis). You obviously not want the redirect when randomvandal redirects your userpage to User:Evil_admin (as examples, see http://es.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ALog&type=move&... 7 oct)
This is a reasonable use case, I agree (reverting page-move vandalism). It seems reasonable to expose to bots, I guess.
Simetrical schreef:
This is a reasonable use case, I agree (reverting page-move vandalism). It seems reasonable to expose to bots, I guess.
Maybe create a permission like 'surpressredir' for this?
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Simetrical schreef:
This is a reasonable use case, I agree (reverting page-move vandalism). It seems reasonable to expose to bots, I guess.
I've added the suppressredirect right in r27774 and r27775 for sysops and bots.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
On 11/6/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
My concern is that if it's available in the backend, then it's only a matter of time before some bright spark implements it in the UI as a "trivial enhancement".
That can be addressed when it happens, if there's some useful reason for this functionality to exist at all. (Incidentally, it looks like that code could use some refactoring to reduce duplication, but that's neither here nor there.)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org