Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:53 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 4632 - Disabling of cross-namespace redirects
Disabling of cross-namespace redirects
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Redirects (Other open bugs)
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-01-16 06:20 UTC by Anton
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Anton 2006-01-16 06:20:38 UTC
Redirects should not work if the destination is in another namespace 
than the origin.
Comment 1 Brion Vibber 2006-01-16 10:22:45 UTC
Yes they should.
Comment 2 Anton 2006-01-16 17:31:18 UTC
No they should not. Look at oc.wikipedia. Someone has moved loads of 
articles into category namespace. Should the software allow that? My 
guess: no.
Comment 3 Rob Church 2006-01-16 17:40:44 UTC
A redirect is a redirect. Just because some projects prefer to avoid them,
doesn't mean we should blanket disable/prevent them.
Comment 4 Anton 2006-01-16 19:49:17 UTC
In that case, double redirects are 
redirects as well.
Comment 5 Anton 2006-01-16 19:54:31 UTC
You are saying following is "normal":
[[X]] is a redirect to [[User talk:Y]]
[[A]] is a redirect to [[Category:B]]
[[Talk:blah]] is a redirect to 

nice feature!
Comment 6 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2006-01-16 19:56:41 UTC
Closing bug. It's a feature.
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2006-01-16 19:58:50 UTC
People do in fact use these. They are a useful part of the system, for instance when old list 
pages are converted to use new features (categories, templates etc), for compatibility when 
namespace names are changed, to make shortcuts, etc.

This "request" will never be implemented because it requests the removal of a useful system and 
offers nothing in return.
Comment 8 Anton 2006-01-16 20:03:07 UTC
The software offers lots of ways to solve redirects that are created by 
moving items to different namespaces. Like double redirects, the created 
redirects should do not have to be functional. You are missing the point 
because you only see what you want to see.
Comment 9 Anton 2006-01-17 19:13:14 UTC
So it is true what people say about the developers: a bunch of arrogant 
people, just doing the things they like?
Comment 10 Brion Vibber 2006-01-17 19:21:35 UTC
Anton, let me note a few things:
* You have not provided any reason or justification for your desire to make 
redirects fail.
* We have pointed out several scenarios in which they are useful.
* We have explained that we will keep the software functional because it is 
useful and there is no reason to break it.
* You have responded with ad-hominem attacks.
Comment 11 Anton 2006-01-17 19:35:52 UTC
First of all: I am sorry for what I said - something happened on nl-
wiki today that made me very sad.

But you refuse to listen to my points:
* it is undesired that articles can redirect to other namespaces, like 
categories or user talk pages.
* the solution that was made to handle double redirects is excellent: 
they can easily be traced, even if they don't function.
* It seems I was talking against a wall. You responded exactly the way 
many users say you developers (as a group) do. What I said was the 
general opinion about you, and it is hard for me to defend your actions 
if you respond this way.
Comment 12 Brion Vibber 2006-01-17 19:47:44 UTC
Anton, thanks for your comments. However, you have not provided any points to 
listen to yet. In response to your bullets:

* It is in fact desired that this can be done! This is very frequently used, 
and we have pointed out above some scenarios in which it is used.

In contrast, you have provided absolutely no explanation of why it is 
"undesired". You have provided no example of a situation in which it would be 
undesirable or reasons why. You have asked us to harm functionality that other 
people use for no reason.

* That's a quick hack to prevent looping and long, hard-to-maintain chains. The 
interface is poor, and it would be a bad model to work from.

* I find it very strange that you would call us "arrogant" for doing what users 
want us to do (make the software work consistently and clearly, in a way that 
people frequently use it). We would receive a large number of complaints if we 
implemented your suggestion, ignoring the actual use of this feature by 
hundreds, perhaps thousands of other users. There are already multiple bug 
reports (now closed, since we have fixed these cases) for the more obscure 
cases such as redirecting to category and image pages (which are in fact used, 
as reminded above).

If you really wanted us to implement this, you would need to provide some 
explanation of why we should ignore all of our users except for you. I would be 
very surprised if there is a good reason for this, but perhaps it could be 
possible. However, you have not made any attempt to do this so far; you have 
simply asserted over and over that something that many other users find a 
useful and productive feature is "undesired".

You may toss around claims of "arrogance" if you wish, but please do not direct 
them toward us.
Comment 13 Anton 2006-01-20 07:25:27 UTC
First: I was not calling you arrogant, I was just giving you the view 
of many users I have seen. Didn't you notice the question mark?  In 
case you haven't noticed: the developers have an "image problem": users 
have the feeling they are not listening. This can be true, or not, that 
doesn't matter since it is a widespread feeling.

The response I got to my not very well formulated question was not very 
constructive, and, as I explained, a few things happened at 
nl.wikipedia at the time that made me a bit more emotional than normal.

Now for the cross-namespace redirects:
I still see no good use for functional cross-namespace redirects: if a 
page needs one, it is for one of the following reasons:
*the page is not suitable for the namespace it is in; solution: move 
the page or delete it;
*the namespaces are not suitable for the page: this is a fault in the 
namespace design of the wiki.

In my opinion, cross-namespace redirects are for temporary use only, in 
most cases when a new namespace is created. Like double redirects, that 
are by definition undesired, there should be a mechanism that doesn't 
make cross-namespace redirect work like a normal redirect.
Comment 14 Brion Vibber 2006-01-20 07:38:05 UTC
Ok, in this case I think you just misunderstand what redirects are for. 
Fundamentally, redirects allow a given wiki link or URL to *permanently* continue 
to reach a resource which was previously at that location and has been moved.

If a page should be moved to another namespace because that's more appropriate for 
it, that is *exactly* one of the primary situations in which a redirect is 

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.