Last modified: 2014-09-05 14:37:55 UTC
Hi. At dewp we hat a discussion of the use of a Misspelling template. There were basically two equally bad alternatives: * Inform the user through [[de:Template:Falschschreibung]] (this is what's done atm; translated it says something like "An article named {{FULLPAGENAME}} does not exist. Perhaps you were looking for {{{corrected lemma}}}?"), which has the disadvantage that the user has to do one more click to get to the requested article * Redirect a misspelled lemma to the article the user most likely wants to read (disadvantage: the user does not realize that his spelling was wrong, he thinks it is just an alternative spelling, not a wrong one) So I thought about a way to solve this problem: transclude content of a redirect. Example: Template:Misspelling shows the user that he accidentally spelled a lemma wrong. [[Misstake]] contains the following: #Redirect [[Mistake]] #Transclude {{Misspelling|Misstake}} If the user enters "Misstake" he gets the correct article but is warned that his spelling was wrong. If the user enters "Mistake", the normal article is displayed (no spelling warning). (of course, the syntax is just a proposal, that isn't really important to me) This feature would solve the misspelling conflict and presumably enhance also some other templates. For example [[en:Template:Redirect]] in "Portable Document Format" should only be displayed if the user is redirected from PDF to Portable Document Format, not if he goes directly to Portable Document Format.
Why don't you just do: Perhaps you were looking for [[Mistake]]? [[Mistake]] contains the following: {{Mistake}}
Interesting and smart solution of this problem; that didn't cross my mind! :-) However the title would still be wrong and the talk page and history, too.
Changed summary... There's really nothing transclusion-specific here; the basic requirement is to allow some content on the redirect page to show through above the content of the target page. This would probably typically be a template, but wouldn't necessarily have to me.
*** Bug 14323 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I mentioned this concept at bug 5451 comment 21.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2012 ***