Forum:Redirect changing: Necessary or not?

Proposal
One of my biggest contributions to Wikis is changing redirects. An example would be changing UPR to UPR. People think it isn't necessary but I need to know other opinions on it. It could seriously decrease the number of unneeded loose redirects on this Wiki if I can change all of them. What do you other users think? -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 23:57, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I personally see no problem with it, but as I said on your talk page, you should leave the ones one card pages, since changing them just makes unnecessary backlinks. In addition, changing redirects is never necessary, really. I don't like them myself, and generally try to avoid them. That being said, changing them is certainly not hurting the wiki, but leaving them really isn't either. Cheesedude 00:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't see why not, but I don't quite understand the need. UPR left as it is already redirects to Ultra Parallel Rare... It seems kind of... not worth the hassle, to change every redirect link, but if you want to, I don't see why you should be stopped.--YamiWheeler 00:08, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support, both of you. -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 00:31, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter as long as it's called ultra rare. By the way, who like ultra rare cards? - Fallensilence


 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Piped_link. The second bullet.  --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 21:01, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia policy automatic policy across all wikis in wikia? Cheesedude 23:03, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess not. - Fallensilence


 * I prefer linking Yusei than Yusei or Spell than Spell, where the purpose is to get the reader to the page. The main arguments for not skipping the redirect are:
 * It looks neater.
 * If you ask me, skipping the redirect makes the outputted pages neater, which is more important than what their source code looks like.
 * It makes Special:WhatLinksHere more useful.
 * I'd agree with for things like Darth Vader instead of Darth Vader . I can understand people wanting to find instances where each of those names are used, but nobody's going to want to find when "Yusei" is used instead of "Yusei Fudo". Plus to be consistent, you'd have to link "Yugi" to a first name redirect, but Yugi is a disambiguation page, so you'd have to make a redirect like "Yugi (Muto)" and link Yugi, for it's WhatLinksHere to be as useful as Yusei Fudo's.
 * Linking set and card numbers are a different story. The idea of linking them is to link to the number. When you see LOB-EN001 on card articles, lists and galleries, it's to have the set number linked, not to help get the user to the user get to the "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" article. Whenever you see it, you're either already on the "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" page or there's another adjacent link to "Blue-Eyes White Dragon".  LOB-EN001 Blue-Eyes White Dragon 89631139  is no more significant than  LOB-EN001 Blue-Eyes White Dragon 89631139 . The current version:  LOB-EN001 Blue-Eyes White Dragon 89631139  links the first ad third terms specifically to use the redirects, not to help the reader get to the "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" article.
 * -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:55, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agreed with Deltaneos, it's unnecessary to do all those works, as of his word, it's much easier to go where you need to be. With all those addition, it would just increase file size and slowed the load time so much. --FredCat100 19:58, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * That argument is ridiculous. Fair enough for keeping the Set Numbers and Card Numbers, but "it'll make the load time so much"? Really? So you honestly think that "Secret Rare" over "ScR" will make the page load oh so muuuch slower? Think before you say things. -_-;--YamiWheeler 20:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * More information, long time to set it up. So I rather those short and simple. --FredCat100 20:04, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not valid, since you're not the one who's going to be doing the changing. "long time to set up?" Why would you care? You're not the one linking the terms, GrouchMan is. In addition, it's not as if you now need to link terms as he does. You can continue to link the way you do, it's not hurting anything - but nor is his style, so if he wants to change the links, that shouldn't be a problem. Neither style is actually policy, certian users simply prefer different styles. Cheesedude 21:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it's seemingly unnecessary and seemingly a waste of time or even seemingly not worth it, it isn't harming anyone. There's no real downside to it as long as he doesn't touch the Set and Card Numbers. So, what you prefer doesn't really matter, does it? You don't have much ground to say "No, he's doing something wrong!" like you have been adamantly.--YamiWheeler 20:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * So you just basic hate me and my gut? --FredCat100 20:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't hate you at all. I don't think very highly of you, admittedly, but sometimes you go a bit overboard in your vandettas against people. This isn't about that, though. This is about a person trying to do something that doesn't really harm anybody, and people giving them sh!t over it for no good reason.--YamiWheeler 20:41, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful with words. I just don't accept the idea of long redirect link. I rather those short one better. So stop make up some excuse and accept this. --FredCat100 20:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Heed your own advice. There's nothing for me to accept. Unless you can prove that he's breaking the rules somehow, the majority of people don't seem to care if he does or does not change the links. You learn to accept it. It'll do you some good.--YamiWheeler 20:50, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * FredCat, you're only agreeing with Deltaneos to stay on his good side and also cause you hate me obviously. But if you just want this to be some kinda edit war between the both of us so be it. I know my edits are really helping this Wiki. -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 22:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Grouch-Boy... stop waste your useless edits, they're slow down the site. Very much on my end, as well as all dial-up computers. So stop turn my idea down, I don't like your thing and idea at all! --FredCat100 22:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Should that even be used as an argument? Unless a large number of people have this issue, I don't think page-load speeds need to be taken into consideration. --Blue (Talk) 22:36, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's GROUCHMAN ya little pussy cat!! I don't care if you don't like what I do! I like it! -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 22:44, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the two of them are now editing warring over this. Not sure if it's confined to Chain Material or in other articles as well. But this is getting ridiculous. It's probably a good thing I'm not an admin - I'd have wanted to temp ban you both by now. Cheesedude 02:11, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Or more rather, get rids of that loser, he don't deserve to exist here. All he do is being crybaby all times. --FredCat100 02:16, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * At least I don't act like a selfish obnoxious little pussy cat. And, obviously I speak English way better than you could ever hope to. -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 00:14, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

NO FLAME WARS
WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO GET INVLOVED? I DON'T KNOW, BUT ONE THING IS VERY CLEAR TO ME: THIS IS SO INCONSEQUENTIAL THAT IT IS NOT WORTH GETTING WORKED UP OVER. Thank you. Runer5h 02:21, May 15, 2010 (UTC)Runer5h

^ Agreed.--Akiza Izayoi 02:41, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well just so ya know FredCat started it. -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 00:17, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...
I personally like all of the redirects. They improve the navigation for new and old people. 02:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm talking about are the redirect pages. They help many people. When you type in gale, you get Blackwing - Gale the Whirlwind. That's nice. 02:55, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are nice, but that's not the issue we're talking about. Cheesedude 03:00, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought you were talking about getting rid of many redirect pages and replacing them with pipe trick links? Am I wrong? Maybe my example was too vague? 03:12, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this has nothing to do with pipe link tricks, just regular wikilinks. The argument is whether over redirects should be avoided. For example, changing Syrus to Syrus Truesdale or Syrus. Basically, pointing directly to the page in question, so that "redirected from..." doesn't appear at the top of the page. Cheesedude 03:24, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand. Doing that doesn't hurt the wiki, so I have nothing against it. 03:52, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I'm tryin to make FredCat100 understand, but obviously he won't listen to me. He just acts like an obnoxious selfish little girl. -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 00:19, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think C is better than opposed to C, but it's probably better used for stuff like Deck and Yusei. Just a personal preference, don't enforce it crazy much (except for names). User:Toob/Talk 18:19, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * "Don't enforce it crazy much"? What does that mean? -- GrouchMan (Send a note then scram!! ) 01:37, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder... 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:40, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just agree with the changing redirect for character name. As for the set and number, I agree with Deltaneos for no changes. People come to the gallery or listed page is not to get to the main article of that card (They often come to the main card/set before go to the gallery or list page), so the changing for number and set in galleries and lists are not necessary. It also takes longer time to edit the page and a bit longer to load the page --Blackwings0605 07:42, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Poll?
This has gone on for too long and it has driven a lot of people here crazy. I propose that we end this once and for all with a poll. By the end of it, everybody, including Grouchman and FredCat100, will have to follow the choice with the most amount of votes. Is this acceptable to all of you?--HHTurtle 09:16, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Democracy for the win. 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's honestly what it's going to take, I would support it. But that could be avoided if both of the involved users could simply accepted that neither they nor the other is actually wrong in this situation. There's no reason for FredCat to revert edits specifically to put redirects back. He should have better things to do than follow Grouchman around. In the same vein, Grouchman needs to stop antagonizing FredCat. Cheesedude 01:38, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * FredCat got his edit count up to 2,700 by doing stupid stuff like that. It's ridiculous. 01:42, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a poll is a great idea, but regarding FredCat, I'm not sure how much it's going to help, considering at first, he was told to take it up in the forums rather than reverting edits over and over, and he still continued despite this thread being here. He also recently told Deltaneos that he'd continue over and over unless GrouchMan stopped, regardless of getting a warning from an admin. This is clearly just a hellbent hate vendetta.--YamiWheeler 01:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * A consensus is not determined by voting. Democracy does not work so well on wikis.
 * Simply voting discourages people from discussing. The logic to either side of the argument should have a role in what decision is made. The amount of people on each side does not give this kind of information or allow editors to interact, question each others' choices, make new suggestions or compromise.
 * If someone gives reasons for one side and nobody gives the reasons for the other side, but the side that hasn't given any reasoning has more votes, whoever was arguing on the other side cannot address any of their thoughts.
 * Anyone can create multiple accounts and vote many times for one side. Alternatively invite as many friends as they can find to vote for their side.
 * Active users should say which changes they are in favour of or against. They don't have to, but it would be better if they would also say why. Majority can have some role in the decision, but ultimately, I do not think this should be decided solely by a poll. -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just follow Wikipedia's policy, and (in general) not add in all that extra stuff?
 * It works for Wikipedia. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, then it's good enough for us.  Seriously, this is the main point.
 * It's simple and easy to remember.
 * It's consistent and doesn't require any interpretation. There's no long-winded rules for exceptions or special circumstances in which it's allowed.
 * It makes pages easier to edit.
 * The software allows us to automatically redirect the users, without adding that extra stuff. We might as well use that ability.
 * --Deus Ex Machina (Talk) 03:02, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support his format. That being said, there are still several things I will personally choose to pipe, such as Deck and character names. Honestly, I don't believe that either method harms the wiki, and do not believe that users should edit an article solely to create or avoid redirects. If there is another legitimate reason to edit the article, then redirect suppression/use can be incorporated with the other changes, with other users free to change them back to their own preferred style should they edit the article. Reversions should be happening soley because of redirects. Cheesedude 03:31, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand that a poll will be flawed with fixed votes. Then, how shall we reach a consensus? We can either use Deus Ex Machina's idea and follow Wikipedia's policy, or we can explicitly state in our comments how we support or disagree with the redirects, like with what Chesedude just did.

I urge that we arrive at a conclusion soon or else this situation will get out of control and this whole Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia will be in jeopardy.--HHTurtle 03:42, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Tally
Let's look at what we've got so far. If I've put your name in the wrong section or left you out, please fix it.

I haven't filled in the section for the rarity links. The issue is whether to use C, C or Common Before, filling that section in, is it fair to say that nobody wants to to use C ? -- Deltaneos (talk) 14:08, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

In favour

 * GrouchMan

Against

 * Blackwings0605
 * Cheesedude
 * Deltaneos
 * Deus Ex Machina
 * FredCat100

Neutral

 * Blue-Eyes White Kid
 * YamiWheeler (not sure)

Arguments in favour

 * Page load speeds (Although, I think this argument is nonsense.)
 * Easier to link to.
 * Makes Special:WhatLinksHere more useful.
 * Putting a link around the numbers, is to link to the set numbers, not to help someone get to the card.
 * Works on Wikipedia.

Arguments against

 * Gets rid of the redirected from link.

Conclusion
I think that's a clear consensus to not pipe links for set and card numbers. Anyone disgaree?

Piping/lengthening rarity links
Need to fill this section in....

In favour

 * Blackwings0605
 * Cheesedude
 * Deltaneos (With some exceptions)
 * GrouchMan
 * Toob
 * YamiWheeler

Against

 * Deus Ex Machina
 * FredCat100 (not sure)

Neutral

 * Blue-Eyes White Kid

Arguments in favour

 * Removes the "redirected from..." line.
 * Doesn't really make Special:WhatLinks to more useful.

Arguments against

 * Easier to link to.
 * Works on Wikipedia.

Conclusion
Consensus is quite as clear here. Although this one isn't as big an issue. The other two are what was being edit warred over.

Further comments
.