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)
9. Support Just so long as there can be some degree of flexibility with the "obscure names" rule. Alex Parpotta (talk) 14:47, 7 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 I 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 not helping people who make a common mistake. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I don't get why admins have such strong OCD about "unnecessary" redirects. Shiek is just about the most common typo EVER. Disaster Flare in particular seems to hate them. What gives? Alex Parpotta (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Having typo redirects encourages people to make those mistakes...making them think that they aren't making a mistake at all in some cases. That's not what we want. Serpent King 15:24, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I don't want to have an argument or anything but i feel like you're being kinda condescending. I feel like we're not even being listened to at all, like our opinions don't matter... I am assuming that this will become official no matter how valid our criticisms of it may be, and the implications of the admins abilities to do things like that are quite concerning... Alex Parpotta (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Lemme explain: If I want to link to Sheik, and I typo out Shiek, I'll know about it if the redirect doesn't exist because the link will be red. If it does exist, it'll be blue. Basically, red links are a way to let the editor know that either a) The article doesn't exist yet, or b) ya did it wrong. In 9 out of 10 cases, which of these are true is completely obvious. Also, disproving an opinion is not the same as not listening to it. Serpent King 15:31, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

If there's a typo on the page, someone will fix it. It's not the end of the world. I mean, let's face it, wikis will always be covered in mistakes. Yes, not having the redirect would prevent it in this case, but I consider it more important to have it to help people searching. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

If someone searches for Shiek and it comes up with the search screen...I assume the first reaction will be "dammit, I spelt it wrong" then they would correctly spell it. Also, (apparently not in this case but in others) the search screen is likely to have what ya need right there anyway. Serpent King 15:40, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I was mainly referring to the fact that you completely ignored my explanation about the "obscure names" rule being a bad idea. I know you saw it, you just didn't care. You replied the first time purely talking about the "move decay" example, because it was something you could "disprove", but when I replied explaining what I meant you completely ignored it. I doubt that explanation will make any difference whatsoever. I just feel like because all the admins are in favour of it, they won't be as willing to accept criticism. I completely respect the work that admins do, and I have never had a problem with them before, but even the most benevolent admins have the potential to act SJW-like where you ignore any criticisms of something because of how strongly you agree with it. Also I am aware that technically the admins opinions in proposals are supposed to have equal validity to everyone elses, but when push comes to shove, the admins are more likely to be paid attention to. Alex Parpotta (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Generally true, but it's still an inconvenience, and I imagine some people would be like "why is that not a redirect". Wikipedia has typo redirects (I just went there and successfully searched for "theif"), so I'd say it's an expected feature. I don't like that you're valuing editing convenience over the user experience. But I think I've said all I can at this point, so if you're still not moved I'm not gonna draw this out. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:52, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

@Alex

I was mainly referring to the fact that you completely ignored my explanation about the "obscure names" rule being a bad idea.

It really added nothing new to your original vote, so I didn't see a reason to reply to it.

I doubt that explanation will make any difference whatsoever.

See above. If you want an additional explanation to capture the attention of someone else, you can't simply rehash what you said originally in a different way. If I am just misunderstanding you, and you are somehow adding something new, please feel free to call me out on it

I just feel like because all the admins are in favour of it, they won't be as willing to accept criticism. I completely respect the work that admins do, and I have never had a problem with them before, but even the most benevolent admins have the potential to act SJW-like where you ignore any criticisms of something because of how strongly you agree with it. Also I am aware that technically the admins opinions in proposals are supposed to have equal validity to everyone elses, but when push comes to shove, the admins are more likely to be paid attention to.

I remember feeling like this as a normal user myself. Believe me I do not have my head stuck so far up my own ass as to not listen to differing opinions. I can't speak for the others, but if you do come up with a good strong reason to oppose this policy that hasn't already come up, I will listen to it.

Hope that clears some things up.

@Zyrac Time and time again, I feel I have to remind people that we are not Wikipedia or MarioWiki or Bulbapedia or anyone other than SmashWiki. We do not have to and should not always follow their guidelines. Also, what is wrong with valuing editing over searching? Serpent King 16:00, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm not saying we have to be like Wikipedia, just that it colours people's expectations. And I think readers should be prioritised over editors simply because the whole point of making a wiki is for people to read it. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 16:06, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Dear Serpent King. I would like to try to explain my opposition as clearly as possible, as well as clear a few things up. Firstly, the reason I re-explained my criticism was because you said 'I don't really understand your opposition', which implied that I may not have explained my opposition properly. Therefore I went into a bit more detail the second time round. However when you ignored it, it felt like you didn't care, especially since, as stated earlier you last comment on my opposition was 'I don't really understand your opposition', suggesting that you just saw my opposition as meaningless. Secondly, you still have not directly addressed my criticism of the "obscure names" rule, as you original comment on it focused entirely on the example I gave, which was just the first thing that popped into my head, and was not intended to be the basis of my argument. To re-iterate, my main issue is that just because something is obscure, doesn't mean it is invalid, and as long as it is recognised by some people, it should justify a redirect. If you could please directly comment on this viewpoint so I can better understand your point of view, I would be grateful. Finally, I would like to add that my suggestion about that particular rule merely being a guideline COULD work, as there is a difference between a rule and a guideline. Making the suggestion for redirects to not constantly be used for obscure names would give a user a better idea of what kinds of things need redirects, but doesn't forbid them from making obscure redirects if they feel it will be helpful (which it certainly could be). Alex Parpotta (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

So say that a small community of people suddenly start calling Pikachu "hotdog" or something (I know it's a dumb example, but I have seen dumber nicknames). Would you want a redirect like that? This is the kind of thing that our policies are meant to protect against. Additionally, each redirect situation can be evaluated against this policy as they come. The policy does not set a hard fast "notability limit" on unofficial nicknames, only mentioning that they must be at least somewhat well known. Serpent King 16:47, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I guess I see your point. But for things like that it may be better to take things on a case by case basis like DNK suggested. I basically agree with all the other rules, but i really think that the obscure name thing should be more of a guideline. Like I said, if it would be helpful to make the redirect, which in the case of your "hotdog" example it would not, then I think it should be valid. Like for example if a youtube video referred to a known tech by an obscure name, and then a bunch of people who saw the video started calling it that, having no idea what the real name is, they may never find the page for that tech. If it is something that people would genuinely search for (which almost certainly would not be the case with "hotdog", which is a key difference) then it really should be a redirect. To re-use my previous example of move decay, although it is pretty obscure, there are still people who would search it (like I once did many years ago, I never found the page back then), therefore it deserves a redirect. However your example of "hotdog" is realistically not something people would actually search for, as they would already know Pikachu's name, as well as know that there is no way he would actually be called hotdog. Even if a group of people started calling it that, no one would expect it to be a redirect. But some obscure names sound sensible, and may refer to things where a lot of people don't actually know the official name, and in that case, even if it is not hugely popular, I still feel it should have a redirect. It just seems like the section on that on the page is too restrictive. Every case is different, and some alternate name, are relevant, even if they are not well known. In the same way, just because something is well known doesn't mean it deserves a redirect. To use an example similar to "hotdog", but well known, many people know the nickname "Baeonetta", but obviously that would be a stupid thing to have a redirect for. I know I've waffled a bit but what I'm basically saying is that wether or not a redirect is justifiable should be based on how sensible it is, not how well known it is (A.K.A move decay = good, Baeonetta = bad). Alex Parpotta (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

Except that if an obscure name becomes more popular, it's not obscure anymore... Like I said, there is no hard fast rule on how popular an unofficial name must be, and it would be considered on a case by case basis anyway. Serpent King 18:30, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

For what it's worth, "Shiek" is both an insanely common typo and her actual name in German (because "ie"/"ei" stuff). That's more than reason enough for it to merit a redirect. Miles (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I actually have to side with Serp on this one. I for one probably don't want typos to be redirected, because number 1, it makes them harder to spot because they both show up blue, and number 2, allowing typos to be redirected encourages the mistakes. That said, you make a good point about the German name thing - so while a typo wouldn't be a good reason for a redirect, if it was the actual name of another localisation, that would be a good reason. Regardless, I think I want to leave this one. Black Vulpine (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I must admit I'm increasingly concerned about the eagerness to delete redirects of value, which includes some misspelling-based redirects. While we certainly don't need to cover every possible misspelling ("Yohsi's Island"), particularly common ones should definitely remain as a means of convenience. There's a point at which you're undoing harmless convenience more than doing anything of value. There's a difference between inventing 37 names for "match timer" and taking out redirects that are probably getting actual use through the search bar. Miles (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Although I've made my gripes about the obscure names rule clear, I actually agree with the typos one. As someone who hates typos, I think it's important that it is clearly pointed out when they make a typo. The easiest way to do this is to stop accommodating for spelling errors that users regularly make. for example if someone kept typing "definetely" instead of "definitely", but a redirect made it seamlessly appear as though they had spelt it correctly, they will just continue to make that mistake. Alex Parpotta (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

That's a bit of a stretch; it clearly says at the top that you were redirected if you use the wrong title. Disregarding the official-in-Germany aspect for a moment, if someone types "Shiek", why make them go through the extra effort of figuring out how it's spelled instead of redirecting them to the page they were clearly looking for? Deliberately inconveniencing the end user because you assume they won't notice the "redirected from _____" notice is a counterproductive idea. Miles (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

this is your idea of "clearly"? A tiny message in the top corner... Alex Parpotta (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Which is exactly where the beginning of the article is, and the first place a user is likely to look. Miles (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

I should hope that if someone types in "Shiek" and gets taken to a page that says "Sheik" all over it, they will probably get the point. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 13:38, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

But it's also about how redirects take up space and cause clutter, and is it really worth having a bunch of redirects for typos which at best would save a few seconds? Redirects really should be for things with alternate names that it may take a lot longer to find the real name of, rather than a typo. Alex Parpotta (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

I have a hard time believing that a few redirects for common typos would cause any real problem. Even this policy proposal concedes that redirects are "cheap". Zyrac(talk•contribs) 14:07, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Also, to anyone concerned that leaving redirects encourages "laziness" in their usage and the potential for leaving misspellings in the mainspace, keep in mind you can always use Special:WhatLinksHere to check things like Special:WhatLinksHere/Shiek to make sure it's not being misspelled in the mainspace. Miles (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Maybe something like Shiek can be an exception then. I don't want redirects like "Zeor Suit Samus" or "Like ike". Gunna include a thing about exceptions on the policy. Serpent King 17:45, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Plurals

Are plural redirects yay or nay? I ask this because Disaster Flare recently deleted 2 redirects that were pluralizations. Alex Parpotta (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

Plural redirects are usually a no because the syntax [[egg]]s can basically fake them for links, and there's no reason to type "eggs" in the search box when you can just type "egg". But for non-additive plurals, like "trophy" vs "trophies", they're okay. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 21:04, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

What about cases like Hacks, Items, Rumors, Stickers, Custom moves, or Stale Moves? What in the world does "easily searchable" mean? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:55, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Why don't you try actually asking nicely instead of being a dick about it? I meant that someone could feasibly search for the plural of those words and come up with nothing if the redirects are deleted. Some are pointless, like peanuts and apples, but others are not. Serpent King 21:06, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Also Rumors points to "List of Rumors" so it makes sense. Stale Moves is what Melee calls the bonus that you get, and Items is in the side bar. Serpent King 21:08, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

oookay, if you consider "what in the world" as "being a dick", you need to get out more, lol

But how do you actually define it? What actually makes "Stickers" more feasible to be searched than "Peanuts"? That's extremely subjective. You can't possibly believe that that's an enforceable rule. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:32, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

I can because "Peanut" is the name of the item. "Sticker" is the name of the item but "Stickers" is the name of the corresponding trophy. Also there are many different stickers, there is only one peanut. Serpent King 21:36, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

Ayyyy, if it isn't Nutta himself!! Sorry but I gotta agree with SK. Plus, "he needs to get out more"? Come on man, SW:NPA applies outside of talk pages, too. -- Beep (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2017 (EDT)