SmashWiki talk:Redirects

Support

1. Support You'd think something like this would be common sense and not need to be a policy... Aidan, the Springing Dragon Warrior 23:12, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
2. Sounds good. I had always thought guidelines regarding redirects would be handy to have in the case of a particularly confusing instance. BaconMaster 23:22, 21 April 2017 (EDT)
3. This would be a good policy to have, not just for people who wouldn't know what common sense is if it shot them in the face at point-blank range with a shotgun, but also for new people who may not necessarily know how to do it and such (I've encountered users like that in the past). With that in mind, I think it's plainly obvious what my stance is on the matter. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
4. Do it! Just do it! Don't let your dreams be dreams. Fads aside, nothing has not been covered by the guys above me. -- Beep (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
5. Support as stated above. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 21:34, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
6. Support This would've come in real handy when I was new here, and I'll bet that it'll help other users. Penro 18:55, 23 April 2017 (EDT)
7. Why not? It would definitely be useful. kenniky 23:58, 23 April 2017 (EDT)
8. Shift to Support only as a guideline per Nutty. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:54, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Oppose

1. Oppose Eh, has there been a recent example of somebody making lots of pointless redirects? I would say this is the sort of thing that can be left up to the user's discretion when creating the redirects. If somebody did make a 'needless' redirect such as a capitalisation one, I don't think anyone would stand in the way of an admin wiping it on their own accord. Whether you're looking from the perspective of creating or deleting, generally people will be indifferent about each case. Adding a policy only makes the process feel more stringent, and people might start to question whether or not their redirect is useful. I doubt little-used redirects really take up much server space. Toast ltimatum 00:26, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

   Dragonfirebreath25 has been a pretty good recent example. Hell, there's still pointless redirects of his I'm finding that never got deleted. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

   That's kind of the point, to get people to think before they make a redirect (or in many cases, a series of them) that I later have to delete Serpent King 00:47, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

2. Oppose. This is a completely pointless policy. Redirect usefulness is generally determined on a case-by-case basis. Any user who repeatedly makes clearly useless redirects is likely trying to stir up trouble. If it were a guideline, I may agree, but I see no point in allowing punishment of users who are trying to make the wiki more navigable (or otherwise giving another redundant reason to punish troublemaking users). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 00:09, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
3. Oppose This could really easily become controversial, especially regarding the "obscure names" rule, as some people only know something by an otherwise obscure name, e.g move decay (stale-move negation). If it is used by a group of people, no matter how small, it should be valid as a redirect (unless it's like one person who calls it that, in which case I agree that it is invalid). Alex Parpotta (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
4. Oppose' Agreed with Alex, and I also don't like the total ban on typo redirects. You say idiot-proofing, I say user-friendliness. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning towards support. Unnecessary redirects aren't that big of a problem on this wiki, but it might be nice to have a clear, consistent policy for the few exceptions. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:26, 23 April 2017 (EDT)
2. Neutral I am so conflicted right now i can't sleep lol, but anyway I have to agree with both sides, also smasher redirects should be mentioned more, (name redirects, alternative, etc. should be mentioned) Poultry(talk) the God-Slayer 10:25, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

Comments

Might be worth throwing in some acknowledgment of Special:BrokenRedirects and Special:DoubleRedirects in here somewhere. Other than that, I'm mostly neutral on this. It's nothing critical, but they're reasonable guidelines that wouldn't hurt to have in place. Miles (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

Responding to Flare's comment: I have a list of redirects for you to delete, if you want me to make it easier for you. Aidan, the Springing Dragon Warrior 09:22, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

Is this a policy or a guideline? I don't know that it's really something that needs heavily enforced like a policy (we don't want to ban users for making unnecessary redirects), so I would think it would make a better guideline. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 11:57, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

While I wholeheartedly agree that this shouldn't need to be a policy, unfortunately, drastic times call for drastic measures. Aidan, the Springing Dragon Warrior 14:26, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

@Nutta I will if I have to. Several chances be given of course, but making a ton of pointless redirects after being asked not to falls under the disruption category. Serpent King 17:50, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

Bump. Serpent King 21:27, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

Bump again Serpent King 18:34, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

I feel like I need to say something real quick. Implementing this only as a guideline honestly sounds like a stupid idea, so is being against this if it means people will be blocked for it. I for one believe that if they are going to keep ignoring your reminders as to how something should work, a block should be in order, because at that point you're disobeying and remaining ignorant. With that in mind, if someone is going to oppose just because of that, you know I highly disagree with you. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Why are people opposing this? This is literally codification of an existing unwritten rule. We aren't adding or changing anything by implementing this. Toomai Glittershine Da Bess 11:03, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Like I said above, my main opposition is to the "obscure names" rule. Other than that I don't really have a huge problem with it. Maybe the bit about obscure names should just be a guideline. Alex Parpotta (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

The example you've given is an existing redirect that I find to be ...borderline well known, but not obscure enough to be terminated by the terms listed in this policy. So I don't really understand your opposition. Serpent King 11:47, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

But that's just it, you implied that if it were a bit more obscure, it would be removed under the proposed rules, but it is nevertheless something people will search for, especially if they don't know the real name. Obviously if it's something someone just made up that would be a problem, but as long as proof of the term's usage can be found, I feel it should be allowed, even if it is obscure. That's why I don't think it should be an official rule. Alex Parpotta (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

If this is the existing rule, are typo redirects not supposed to exist right now? Because they do. There's [Shiek], for example. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Just deleted, thanks. Any more? Serpent King 15:21, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Well that backfired. I object to helping people who make a common mistake. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (EDT)