This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.
Numerous Wikipedians have expressed their opinion that the MediaWiki 1.4's original redirect arrow could be improved. I propose a contest to choose the new arrow, with entries accepted for a week, ending on December 30, followed by a week of voting. The image must be the same size as the current image and must include the word "redirect." [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 05:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The epitome of ugliness; Wikipedia's original redirect arrow. There is also a pseudo-bounty out on the creator of this vile image! :) - Alterego
The arrow was created for a variety of technical reasons, and in order to avoid having redirects appear like numbered lists. It can't be got rid of, but it can be improved. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. It's software, there's nothing that can't be done. If it can discern the difference between a redirect and an ordered list to put in the image, why can't it tell a redirect from an ordered list and not put in an image? --Brockert 04:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In 1.4 there's a little piece of code that displays a redirect, it doesn't go through the parser. I could make it so that it displayed a numbered list, simulating the previous behaviour, but a numbered list is a counterintuitive way to display a redirect. See for example the top of w:User talk:Theresa knott/archive 1. -- Tim Starling 09:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing for it to look like an ordered list; I didn't know that the parsing had changed significantly between 1.3 and 1.4. My point still stands then: why can't it be gotten rid of? If it's reading it in a new way, it should be possible to change the code to read it in a way that doesn't display an image. --Brockert 23:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It probably can't be easily changed that the source looks like a numbered list, but if in the resulting page the numbered list can be shown as a picture it can be shown as anything. Otherwise I'd like to hear more about these various technical reasons. -- Schnargel 05:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would need to catch him in a really quiet moment I guess. However I concur with User:Brockert above. -- Schnargel 00:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One thing I do find a little bit unsettling right now is that the edit preview still shows a list. Feedback that the redirect was entered correctly still waits until the change is committed. IMeowbot 07:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redirects don't go through the parser? How's that supposed to be a "feature"? If anything, it has reopened bug 927 and rendered en:Category:Redirects useless. -- Paddu 08:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not just make an option "Show redirect arrow image" on the preferences page? Would that be too hard to implement? Kieff 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I have a preference (which by the looks of it, is not popular) towards a symbol of some sort. An option to enable or disable it is a good idea. If not technically difficult/impossible, offer those that enable the offsite indicator a choice of say three differnt images. Having this feature as an option:
1. (most likely) doesn't increase the amount of processing on the server(s).
2. doesn't change the original goal of wikimedia, it only allows it to be more user friendly.
We don't even need a redirect image. :) Kieff 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kieff pointed it out. We don´t need an image, it´s absolutely needless IMO. --Bdk 07:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, text is enough. After all the image won't be visible very often anyways. --TomK32WR Internet 08:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No image is fine with me, a fancy Unicode arrow ⤿ is fine with me if you all want questions about what's that square doing there, but why do we need to load a picture in that place? To show where antialiasing would be nice to have? -- Schnargel 10:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Schafft den häßlichen Pfeil bitte so schnell als möglich wieder ab. Das Wort "Redirect" ist völlig ausreichend. 195.37.188.210 11:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) Please abolish this ugly arrow as soon as possible. The word "redirect" is quite enough.
I agree. A picture in that place is a great deal too much. --Guenny 14:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The arrow is not necessary at all. 80.121.40.27 18:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find the recent trend toward having lots of unnecessary images and fancy formatting annoying. Why do we need cute little graphics for everything? Isomorphic 20:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The arrow is not necessary, i don't want it. Scrap it soon, please. :) — Daniel FR 23:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please scrap the whole thing, not only is it ugly, slow, and uneeded but also something you'd need image editing software to translate, why not just a mediawiki: message like This page is a redirect to $1 or something like that which can then be adjusted as needed. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 23:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In the article itself an image is not necessary. It wold be better e.g. in the categories. Name + image would be helpful. --K@rl
Nothing wrong with the symbol; it just doasn't serve any purpose. Those who see redirection pages are concerned with their textual contents; not much reason to hide that. There is something wrong with the image: After we agreed we were going to do everything internationalized, this includes the English text. Drop that; text should not show up in a symbol anyway. Aliter 14:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Drop them all; by virue of their uglyness and/or conspicuousness all these symbols distract the reader unnecessarily. If there must be a symbol, make it as unobtrusive as possible. (Why not the simplest of arrows, like this one -> ?). Kosebamse 21:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We don't even need a redirect image. :) Kieff 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Get rid of it. If the software can't currently be altered to get rid of it, change it to a one pixel transparent png. --Brockert 00:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dont like the idea of a picture. RustyCale 12:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redirection should be textual, to facilitate translation. To require the English word "redirect" inside the image itself is absurd. Arj 15:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We don't need the arrow, but if it's technically necessary, I've submitted a proposal for a suitable image below. Eugene van der Pijll 18:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I vote for no arrow. I think the arrow image tends to break the flow of what one is reading. If some type of symbology should be used, I would think text based would be the least obtrusive. For example, an italic or bold link. J$ --J$ 00:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've assumed that everyone who suggested an arrow wants one unless they said something else - please correct me if I got your real preference wrong. Thanks.:) Jamesday 01:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I thought the simpler, the better. Luckily Kieff licensed his contribution under the GFDL, so I just added his PNG with transparency. (as a tribute to FF users, of course) --Alterego 06:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Small and symbolic thus no need for the actual redirect text --Jimius 11:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like this one best. In order to explain in language independent terms what the icon means, people should be able to click on it, and a larger version would be displayed, which can be clicked again for yet a larger version, ad infinitum :) Don't get me wrong, I really like it Erik Zachte 03:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
It's a one pixel transparent PNG, if it's absolutely totally necessary to have an image in that spot. To fulfil the size requirement at the top of the page, expand as necessary. It also contains the word "redirect", using a slightly lossy compression.--Brockert 00:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems a bit pointless, but I don't mind it. –Andre (talk) 23:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think so. It's a pity I didn't know about this page sooner, I wouldn't make SVG versions for actual arrows... Buh, they can be useful if arrow is no changed. And if not, I practise with Inkscape Finally I uploaded SVG versions to Commons, but they are a bit ugly... --Nethac DIU23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But customizable image is a good idea, I think. There also are multiple skins for see Wikimedia projects. --also Nethac DIU
==Symbol sensible?==~
I like the pure text display "redirect: ", because a typical user of wikipedia see not a redirect page and a poweruser could read the pure text "redirect: " very efficient.
I made this all by myself. Bobb 00:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Small and symbolic thus no need for the actual redirect text --Jimius 11:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure it's ugly, but there are regulations for these things! IMeowbot 11:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But when all people like symbols, so please use this symbol without (!) text: --Ocrho 16:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's a one pixel transparent PNG, if it's absolutely totally necessary to have an image in that spot. To fulfil the size requirement at the top of the page, expand as necessary. It also contains the word "redirect", using a slightly lossy compression.--Brockert 00:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If it really has to be an image instead of just the text "REDIRECT"... Eugene van der Pijll 18:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clean, transparent, and easy-to-read. --Mero 12:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
![[1]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Redirect.jpg){kind=link}