Last modified: 2011-03-13 17:46:00 UTC
Someone moved "Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π" to "Proof that 22/7 exceeds π". On the talk page, the usual notice appears: "This article was previously considered for deletion. The consensus was keep. An archived record of the discussion can be found here." Clicking on "here" after the move brought up the usual editing window for a non-existent article. I made that into a redirect page. Can the software be so arranged that when a page gets moved, that sort of link doesn't get broken?
I'm afraid not. It is the responsibility of the user who moves the page, to fix broken links and double redirects. Suggesting WONTFIX.
The comment by Huji misrepresents the situation and is unreasonable. On all the many hundreds of times I've moved pages, I've always clicked on "what links here" and fixed double redirects and links to the old title. Very very few people have more experience with this than I do. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT SORT OF THING. Please read CAREFULLY. If even I have never noticed this before, then I suggest it is unreasonable to expect most people to notice it when they move pages. This is NOT about links to the page that got moved!
Guess what? The redirect doesn't even work in this situation! If this doesn't get fixed fast, I'm going to report that as a separate bug.
NOTE: THIS BUG REPORT IS __NOT__ ABOUT LINKS TO A MOVED PAGE. OK? Sheesh....
People moving pages should check for this kind of thing, and move the AfD too (or create a redirect). The issue is easy to spot: just take a quick look at the talk page.
So how do you fix it after you've spotted it? Be specific. Note that: (1) The template uses "PAGENAME". (2) Redirects don't work in cases like this. I tried it. (3) The alternative seems to be moving the AfD discussion page. Is there a policy about this? Should I tell the person who moved the page that you, Roan Kattouw, think he's irresponsible? How many pages have you moved? As many as I have? How many times have you seen this situation?
(In reply to comment #6) > (2) Redirects don't work in cases like this. I tried it. Did you try clicking the created red link and entering #REDIRECT [[Old AfD page]]? I see no reason why that wouldn't work. > (3) The alternative seems to be moving the AfD discussion page. Is there a > policy about this? I don't know, I'm just a developer, not a Wikipedian. Perhaps such a policy should be written. > Should I tell the person who moved the page that you, Roan > Kattouw, think he's irresponsible? How many pages have you moved? As many as > I have? How many times have you seen this situation? No need for personal attacks here. I have moved as much as one page which didn't have an associated AfD. I'm also not suggesting that people who forget to fix red links are 'irresponsible', merely that it's their responsibility (forgetting stuff or not knowing how to fix it is not irresponsible in my book). As many people seem to have no idea how to fix this kind of red link, perhaps a policy or HOWTO should be created for it. The point I'm trying to make is that it's possible to fix these links by hand. Doing this in the software would be ludicrously complicated and expensive. For the policy issue, please go to Wikipedia itself (the Village Pump or wherever else these things are sorted out). Closing this bug again for the reasons mentioned above (too complicated and too expensive, can be done by hand).
You could subst the page name when you add the template. {{oldafdfull | page = {{subst:PAGENAME}} }}
Roan Kattouw: I __told__ you that I tried it. So after you're told that I tried it and it didn't work you respond by saying you see no reason why it shouldn't work, and therefore you'll disregard it? Do you do that with all bugs? Someone says "X isn't working and I don't know why not. Can someone fix it?". Then you, Roan Kattouw, respond by saying "I see no reason why it shouldn't work, so I will disregard your report that it doesn't."
Tim Starling, you miss the point. Please actually READ what you're responding to. OBVIOUSLY the template was added LONG BEFORE the page move. Why do so many people responding to this particular bug report try to prove they haven't read the comments they're answering? Is it really too much to ask that if people respond to comments they actually read them first instead of posting things that prove that they haven't?
Yes, the template is added before the page move. When it was added, the page name should have been substed, to protect it against future page moves. All existing instances of templates which use {{PAGENAME}} to generate links should be migrated to an invocation with the page name substed. Because the answer to your original question, "Can the software be so arranged that when a page gets moved, that sort of link doesn't get broken?" is no.
The red link Michael Hardy mentioned was easily fixed by purging the talk page.
Changing all WONTFIX high priority bugs to lowest priority (no mail should be generated since I turned it off for this.)
