Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:03, 17 March 2008

This is the talk page for the special page at Special:DoubleRedirects. For general information on this and other special pages, see Help:Special page. For recent talk about special pages, see Recentchangeslinked/Specialpages discussion

Archive 1

Update

Who is incharge in updating this page, please update. --Parker007 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice the note placed by the developers: Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed. We need to come up with an alternate method. Any ideas? —Mets501 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bug the developers at wiki tech? --Parker007 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried that one already :-) —Mets501 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log Whoever writes a log, tell them to update the double redirects. I don't see you telling them on their talk page there? I already told: https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/User_talk:Brion & https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/User_talk:Tim ; Lets send a message to all the devs of Misplaced Pages over there on their talk page. Hopefully one of them will listen. --Parker007 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to many devs in person on IRC; they said that it was too taxing on the server to run, and it failed often anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell them to run it for one last time? --Parker007 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to try? I don't want to piss them off more than they already are :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Vote here: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8799 --Parker007 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Decisions on Misplaced Pages are not made by voting, especially technical decisions. —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but the more votes people put in for the bug (votes, not comments), the higher up on the devs priority list it goes. —Mets501 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really important to have the page updated. You can still download an XML dump and have a tool analyse it and fix double redirects. Now, we should really be bugging the devs about getting valid updated dumps, which are useful beyond merely fixing double redirects. --Gwern (contribs) 04:25 6 March 2007 (GMT)

The patch was released on Bugzilla, and yesterday the devs updated the Misplaced Pages version, which included a patch for the double redirects. --Parker007 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Format change

Who decided to change the page format so that fixed redirects are shown struck-out instead of just disappearing? And why doesn't anyone announce these types of changes before they make them? If it were up to me, I'd have put the format in a CSS selector instead of a hard-coded <s> element, so that individual users could decide for themselves how they want the list displayed. But nobody asked me.... Russ (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't some double redirects stay?

Shouldn't some double redirects stay in-case an article is split later?

I assume that many double-redirects are created when articles are merged, but if articles are merged and then expanded they might be separated again, so what's the harm in keeping the double-redirect if it makes sense?

I realize that 99% of double-redirects are not helpful, but there should be a way to flag your double redirect as being deliberately created so that the bots will skip it.

Example:

1. Say you have a redirect One-Way Valve --> Valve
2. But the Valve article is a stub, so it becomes a section in the Plumbing article.
3. So this creates the double redirect One-Way Valve --> Valve --> Plumbing
4. And the bot "fixes" it by creating One-Way Valve --> Plumbing and Valve --> Plumbing
5. But then you have One-Way Valve --> Plumbing which is fine unless the Valve and Plumbing articles are split eventually, which is likely to happen as they are expanded.
6. So then, if this redirect is missed, we end up with One-Way Valve --> Plumbing even though there is an article entitled Valve

SO THE QUESTION IS if removing double-redirects on a article that is being merged for lack of content, but that will likely be split again later, has the potential to create problems in the future, then why not keep these rare but useful double-redirects, since they are invisible to the average reader anyway? 72.197.190.17 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

question...

I left a question for a bot owner, as to whether they intended their bot to ignore #redirect ] {{R from misspelling}} or #redirect ] {{R with possibilities}} templates?

They left a note on my talk page saying they didn't understand my question.

So, I will clarify here. It seems to me that there would be no purpose for these templates if they didn't cause people to think twice about "fixing" redirections. Operative word "People". Should bots really ignore these templates?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On English[REDACTED] we deal with hundreds of double redirects and in certain cases thousands.

Double redirects are an interface hazard to the reader. Which is exactly why they are unwelcome and need to be fixed.

Redirect pages do not have to contain a "redirect template" of any kind as the reader does not see these pages. Such templates are notes to the editors not readers - which is fine. Their purpose is to inform the editor why that redirect exists, they do not have any other function.

A -> B -> C -> D (double redirect)

A -> D

B -> D

C -> D

A bot fixing double redirects basically makes sure no redirect links to another redirect. That is whats expected of the bots in question to do.

-- Cat 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages specialpages discussion