If a particular wiki wants it to say this, then they're free to update their own version by editing the message in question. In the core software, I think the original description suits it just fine. Suggest WONTFIX.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

If a particular wiki wants it to say this, then they're free to update their
own version by editing the message in question. In the core software, I think
the original description suits it just fine. Suggest WONTFIX.

We remind people in plenty of default system messages to only use certain features as permitted by policy (sometimes the reminder is simply to follow some best practice) - I don't see how this is any different.

For example, when moving pages, the default system message reminds you to check for double redirects, and that moving popular pages can be disruptive.

(In reply to comment #2)

We remind people in plenty of default system messages to only use certain
features as permitted by policy (sometimes the reminder is simply to follow
some best practice) - I don't see how this is any different.

Fair enough, but I still see this one as a bit too specific to include in core.

For example, when moving pages, the default system message reminds you to check
for double redirects, and that moving popular pages can be disruptive.

As a quick note, the suggestion against double redirects is a valid one, as double redirects don't work on MW period. And, for particularly large sites: moving a large page can be disruptive and is also a valid concern.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

(In reply to comment #2)

We remind people in plenty of default system messages to only use certain
features as permitted by policy (sometimes the reminder is simply to follow
some best practice) - I don't see how this is any different.

Fair enough, but I still see this one as a bit too specific to include in core.

For example, when moving pages, the default system message reminds you to check
for double redirects, and that moving popular pages can be disruptive.

As a quick note, the suggestion against double redirects is a valid one, as
double redirects don't work on MW period. And, for particularly large sites:
moving a large page can be disruptive and is also a valid concern.

Not leaving redirects is a valid concern. I'd argue it's more important than either of these, and far more important than other reminders in various places. I could do some research if you like.

I'm very iffy on the wording, if the message is to be changed. Using "acceptable" makes it seem like policy, which very well might not be the case outside of a particular community.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #5)

I'm very iffy on the wording, if the message is to be changed. Using
"acceptable" makes it seem like policy, which very well might not be the case
outside of a particular community.

Perhaps "You should leave a redirect unless reverting page move vandalism" then? As long as something of this nature is noted, I'll be quite happy. The specific words used are somewhat less important, though concise is better. I should also note that probably /no/ community has a policy on this since only recently was this added to the UI (and quite few users have access to it). But that doesn't mean it's not still a good idea.

I really don't like this either. On many wikis, including some WMF wikis, registration is restricted and there is basically no concept of vandalism.

thogol wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

I really don't like this either. On many wikis, including some WMF wikis,
registration is restricted and there is basically no concept of vandalism.

:Well, that's no matter of any kind. These are exceptions. 99.odd% of the WMF wikis are public. Btw., for fixing orthographical problems in lemmata, it might also be suggested not to leave a redirect behind. I guess on all wikis, such redirects are immediately deleted anyway (except on enwiki probably, but that's only one of ~730 projects, so why bother). But this is discussing a policy, which should rather be done on Meta.

Th.

FWIW: The concept of vandalism (in one of the many different word forms) is used in 3 separate messages as is:

*blockiptext
*deletereason-dropdown
*protect-dropdown

Software is not to decide how a particular feature is used according policies.