387:
be fixed, for example links to spelling redirects, most piped links to redirects. But changing the text of an article to fix a redirect is not likely to be a good thing, unless the text reads as well or better (preferably better). Similarly adding a pipe to bypass a redirect is generally not a good
342:
I would say that a vast majority of the redirects used on
Knowledge (XXG) are to correct mispellings or misnomers. Thus, the correction of references to such mistakes in other articles would be a very valid fix. In fact, the only reason that I appreciate for not fixing redirects is future-proofing or
226:
I was just thinking, isn't it actually a better idea to leave redirects alone? My reasoning is as follows: let's say there is a wikilink in article A that links to article B, but article B redirects to article C because the name of article B is something minor related to article C (I'm sure we've all
102:
The value of popups is greatly reduced when the links point to redirects. Once the redirect has been fixed then the popup shows the actual content as it would be displayed if the link were followed. This is useful, and likely what people expect to happen with popups. It may be 'expensive' to fix a
371:
which may encourage users, even if they may be technically savvy users, to contribute to
Knowledge (XXG). This is in fact, why I recently installed the popup. If the 'fix redirect' feature of the popup saves me time and effort, then that is of value to Knowledge (XXG) because I will be more inclined
310:
has pointed out, there is a value to fixing redirect links, and I think this value is not given proper attention in the article. Not only is it less disorienting for users when redirects are not used (they go where they expect to go); but also, the habitual use of redirects for any purpose increases
64:
There's nothing wrong with doing it when you're editing the article anyway. But you shouldn't do it indiscriminately; in many cases redirects are used for topics that could be potential future articles. You shouldn't change such redirects; leaving them alone future-proofs the link for the day when
113:
Not only do I agree, but I think this ratio only justifies not fixing redirects in small wikis. But this is the
English Knowledge (XXG) we're talking about! It's the biggest wiki of them all. So while you may cause 10,000 queries by fixing one (let's assume plainly unjustified) redirection, if this
382:
It is not the tool which is claimed to be inefficient but the server software. And even that is based on a very old benchmark of unknown provenance. Essentially the page is self defeating, because it says that it is a performance hit to fix redirects, then says don't worry about performance. Some
186:
going to ]. Now I know that there's a seriously messed up article out there in need of my attention. And of course, there aren't just naming problems- seeing a fixed redirect can also alert editors that a disambig or redirect should be made, or an article split out from another, or an article
181:
Y'know, fixing popups has a non-performance justification. It can be very valuable to see where a link is "actually" bringing a person; say I'm editting a Star Wars article, and I notice a redirect someone else fixed. To my astonishment, I see that when I go (for the sake of argument) ], it is
326:, at least in the context of the sentence in which it is used. When such redirects are created, they are not intended to be referenced as content articles, now or in the near future, and simply exist to aid users in locating what Knowledge (XXG)'s authors have deemed the best or
330:
article title. Similar to an acronym, the most popular current use of this term, or the most accurate meaning of this term in the context of the article, is the page which the redirect targets. So what if that meaning changes? Well then the article--written at a time when
134:
Popups are not (yet at least) a standard feature of
Knowledge (XXG), and only a tiny fraction of us use it, so changing redirects with an aim to making popups more useful isn't really justified. Popups could be changed to follow redirects, anyway.
80:
And one last question, unrelated to the first two: If it takes roughly 10,000 reads to equate or justify one write, then shouldn't we be more worried about new users signing up and then creating nonsense pages that will be deleted immediately? -
301:
I think this article needs to be revised to have a significantly less-severe tone, and use some better examples, like the ones provided here in the discussion. The example in the article for example, is one that I believe would be better off
48:
Another question, related to the first: Is the point here that using popups to fix redirects is bad from a cost/benefit standpoint, but there's nothing wrong with doing it manually, especially if you're making other edits to the article? |
257:, if there were a another revolution next year, using that link future-proofs the link—if there's another revolution, he certainly won't have fled during each. (Not that I'm wishing or expecting a revolution to happen....) --
355:
aticle names should take precidence over general ones, as a more effective means of future-proofing entire articles. So, in such a case, the editor might want to consider moving the article name in question.
211:—which we all agree is perfectly fine behavior. If you mechanistically fix the redirects without fixing the other problems, then you would "bless" the article into being one not in need of more attention. --
583:
Is it possible to revisit this? It would seem to be very handy to be able to fix a redirect link to not only point to the correct page, but also resolve the misspelling at the same time. --
615:
521:
335:
was the intended target of the link--would reference something that it was not created for. That is NOT future-proofing. In fact, any case of referencing a less-specific, or
553:
227:
seen this kind of redirect). If someone were later to write a full article on B, would it not be better for said links to still point to B, in order to be more specific? —
577:
322:
in the article. Although I know nothing about the article in question, it seems clear to me that both of these terms are actually synonymous with the target article,
367:. However, I would also point out that one important aim of Knowledge (XXG) is for it to be easy to use, and easy to maintain. This popup tool is just that... a
103:
redirect, but I believe the benefits are worth the cost. What is the actual cost of 10000 SQL queries, anyway? I'll bet not more that $ 1, either CAD or USD.
311:
the risks associated with them, for example double redirects may be inadvertently created. It seems to me that if a reference within a document is actually
339:
term that redirects to a more-specific and intended term, cannot be considered future-proofing an article, and would have the direct opposite effect.
21:
92:
492:
It is disabled in Popups. However wikEd has a "fix redirect" button that does the same thing, so this article applies to users of wikEd as well.
592:
270:
520:
to activate. That green link is just too subtle, and surrounded by too many more obvious links that are dead-ends for this purpose. See
194:
35:
I'm going to ask the obvious question here and wonder why, if this is a bad idea (i.e. frowned upon) to do: why is it a feature? —
363:
due to its inefficiency. If the tool were so inneficient that it were not worth using, then it should either be 'fixed', or simply
626:
608:
565:
532:
501:
484:
465:
449:
417:
399:
376:
286:
261:
235:
215:
197:
168:
139:
123:
107:
69:
58:
43:
413:
I don't see it in my popup when I hover over the relevant link in this article. Has it been removed from the popup feature?
359:
Another element of the article that I take issue with is that it discourages users from making use of the redirect popup
497:
114:
is a popular article, 10,000 read hits may come within hours if not minutes or even seconds, if it's really popular. -
435:
152:
Why is the popup behaviour different for various redirect links? For example, the popup follows the redirect for
478:
459:
393:
281:
600:
517:
332:
323:
232:
493:
348:
250:
246:
191:
87:
347:
is a perfect one, because the article that is redirected to is a generalization of the more specific term,
17:
119:
54:
475:
456:
390:
278:
584:
228:
115:
50:
254:
188:
82:
622:
561:
528:
165:
104:
344:
307:
258:
212:
161:
136:
66:
554:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tools/Navigation popups/Archive 1 § "Fixing" misspelling redirects
430:
618:
557:
524:
443:
414:
373:
319:
157:
153:
37:
578:
some discussion of how popups handles resolving redirects that are misspellings
242:
616:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tools/Navigation popups#Fixing redirects - does it work?
522:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tools/Navigation popups#Fixing redirects - does it work?
473:
OK this feature is disabled by default, as long ago as 2006 (maybe before).
425:
343:
avoiding generalizations (same thing). The example referenced by
315:
to (always) lead to a certain page, then it should do just that.
547:
Link to the discussion that prompted creation of this page
512:
totally disabled; it's only disabled by default. Install
372:
to do so. If it is an error, it should be fixed. --
297:
Multiple Terms for one thing is NOT future-proofing
65:the redirect is changed into an actual article. --
388:idea, as the wikicode becomes harder to read.
351:. In fact, I would argue that in most cases,
241:Yes, absolutely. The example I've used is, "
8:
162:User_talk:Lupin#Different_redirect_behaviour
614:Ten years later, we are revisiting this at
572:"Fixing" misspelling redirects (revisited)
383:redirects are just plain confusing and
156:but does not follow the redirect for
7:
576:In the beginning of 2006, there was
207:bad redirects, and then fixing them
76:What about newbies' test edits then?
209:in the course of making other edits
28:
580:-- there was never a resolution.
318:This brings me to the example of
160:. Why? I've copied this to the
130:The future of redirects in Popups
423:Press the green redirect link.
75:
1:
627:12:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
609:20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
566:19:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
533:12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
514:window.popupFixRedirs = true;
502:22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
400:09:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
59:16:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
44:06:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
485:02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
466:02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
418:04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
287:13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
124:21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
454:What green redirect link?
271:Redirect with possibilities
31:So why is it even possible?
643:
216:07:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
198:05:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
169:20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
140:07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
108:06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
70:07:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tools
377:00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
262:01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
236:18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
177:Value of fixing redirects
93:09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
450:21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
409:Is this still a feature?
333:Morphology (linguistics)
324:Morphology (linguistics)
556:, from January 2006. –
349:1979 Iranian Revolution
251:1979 Iranian Revolution
247:1979 Iranian Revolution
203:That's an argument for
187:merged... &etc. --
306:using a redirect. As
266:That is why there is
245:fled Iran during the
494:The myoclonic jerk
255:Iranian Revolution
98:The 1:10,000 ratio
85:
488:
469:
403:
320:morphosyntactical
253:is a redirect to
154:morphosyntactical
83:
57:
22:Navigation popups
634:
606:
598:
590:
515:
483:
464:
446:
442:
438:
433:
428:
398:
275:
269:
249:". Even though
53:
40:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
601:
593:
585:
574:
549:
513:
444:
440:
436:
431:
426:
411:
299:
273:
267:
224:
179:
147:
132:
100:
78:
38:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
630:
629:
573:
570:
569:
568:
548:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
489:
470:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
298:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
229:flamingspinach
223:
222:Extensibility?
220:
219:
218:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
146:
143:
131:
128:
127:
126:
99:
96:
90:
77:
74:
73:
72:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
624:
620:
617:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
604:
599:
596:
591:
588:
581:
579:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
546:
534:
530:
526:
523:
519:
511:
510:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
486:
481:
480:
477:
472:
471:
467:
462:
461:
458:
453:
452:
451:
448:
447:
439:
434:
429:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
408:
401:
396:
395:
392:
386:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
370:
366:
362:
357:
354:
350:
346:
340:
338:
334:
329:
328:most specific
325:
321:
316:
314:
309:
305:
296:
288:
284:
283:
280:
272:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
221:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
196:
193:
190:
185:
176:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
150:
149:
148:
144:
142:
141:
138:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
97:
95:
94:
91:
88:
86:
71:
68:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
45:
42:
41:
30:
23:
19:
602:
594:
586:
582:
575:
508:
507:
474:
455:
424:
412:
389:
384:
368:
364:
360:
358:
352:
341:
336:
327:
317:
312:
303:
300:
277:
225:
208:
204:
183:
180:
158:morphosyntax
133:
101:
79:
47:
36:
34:
337:generalized
479:Farmbrough
460:Farmbrough
445:Sign here!
394:Farmbrough
345:TreyHarris
308:TreyHarris
282:Farmbrough
259:TreyHarris
243:Reza Aslan
213:TreyHarris
137:TreyHarris
67:TreyHarris
518:vector.js
516:in your
365:not used
353:specific
313:intended
205:locating
195:contribs
184:actually
116:Lwc4life
55:¡digame!
20: |
619:wbm1058
558:wbm1058
525:wbm1058
415:TheHYPO
374:Inarius
89:Simpson
506:It is
385:should
233:(talk)
192:(talk)
164:page.
145:A bug?
84:Corbin
605:inkle
166:--Bob
105:--Bob
16:<
623:talk
562:talk
552:See
529:talk
498:talk
476:Rich
457:Rich
391:Rich
369:tool
361:tool
279:Rich
189:maru
120:talk
51:Klaw
39:THOR
597:iki
589:ull
509:not
304:not
625:)
564:)
531:)
500:)
482:,
463:,
437:10
397:,
285:,
276:.
274:}}
268:{{
231:|
135:--
122:)
621:(
603:W
595:W
587:B
560:(
527:(
496:(
487:.
468:.
441:|
432:C
427:M
402:.
289:.
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.