On Redirect Policy

It came up in the Locked Pages thread (not for the first time) that only specific redirects are allowed to be used on the wiki. All others should be changed out, regardless of context. This specific case involved Hunt The Most Dangerous Game, which is only slightly shorter than the real title and seems to exist solely for the purposes of use on the wiki. It was also being used as a standard link in text, not as an example, so the logic about alphabetization and consistency don't apply.

I want to open up a discussion on this if I can. It seems like a completely arbitrary and overly strict rule to disallow literally any use, no matter the case, unless it's one of a few specific scenarios. I genuinely don't understand why it would be bad to use them if they aren't being used for example writing, since many would be redundant for search purposes and were made specifically to be used. If the redirect isn't causing issues, I can't imagine why we need a rule against them.

Is there logic I'm not getting, or do we just have an overly strict policy?

The only exception I know is

Yeah I have never gotten this policy, especially inline.

For lists, I get, because of alphabeticization. But why can't we use redirects inline paragraphs/sentences if it means it can flow better?

Well, that and we can use the alt spelling redirects (Commonwealth or American versions)

Is it about this post?

I don't think that change is necessary. Some redirects are created to help smooth phrasing inline. You can type out Hunt The Most Dangerous Game instead of potholing in the text.

Yes. Sep changed it due to policy but I found it unnecessary

There might be other reasons for using the pothole, like the text is not trying to draw as much attention to capital H M D G as a trope. It's either-or for me. Pothole "hunt the most dangerous game" to Hunting the Most Dangerous Game? Sure. Keep it at Hunt The Most Dangerous Game? Sure.

We also have cases of redirects to component works of a larger franchise that don't have their own pages, e.g. Naruto Shippuden: just this week I went a few rounds by PM with Clancy over an example specific to that adaptation.

One thing to consider is that there is often a good reason why the redirect title is, well, the redirect rather than the main title. Allowing more than one link to be used can also easily lead to duplicates.

Work page redirects are a different matter, because work page splits are much more common and redirects are typically for distinct works, not the same work under a different name. So an example of Naruto: Shippuden should link to that, not to the main series page.

But the fear of duplication is for examples, right? I can't see how it would apply to in-line wicks.

Nay, because as we all know many people don't read trope descriptions. Allowing in-line links will lead to people thinking they are OK as examples as well. You may also end up with chained sinkholes.

That could be fixed with some label to make it clear that they're redirects and can't be used for examples, with the exceptions in mind, of course. But the admins don't seem to want to make changes like that.

I guess my real question is, what the point of having certain redirects even is if they can't even be used in text. As mentioned, many were made with use in mind, not searching. They should be cut if they aren't valid

Edited by WarJay77 on May 2nd 2024 at 3:12:40 PM

Would like to point out for the sake of interest that With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility has 1795 wicks, 955 of which come from Comes Great Responsibility redirect because it's easier to use, which also has more inbounds.

Trope redirects serve the primary purpose of searchability. They are not intended as alternative wicks. That's been policy since forever.

Right, but most redirects we have serve zero search purpose since they're minor title modifications. If this is an all or nothing rule those redirects have no reason to exist. (Besides, it isn't all or nothing; gender redirects are allowed on character pages and alt spelling redirects are entirely valid)

Does that mean, for example, that in example context an inline {{comes great responsibility}} should be changed to [[WithGreatPowerComesGreatResponsibility comes great responsibility]]?

Also, for a policy that's been asince forever, if there's no Administrivia/ where it's stated, we'll need to add it to How to Write an Example.

Edited by Amonimus on May 17th 2024 at 10:17:11 PM

I disagree on a policy of "redirects are not allowed in-line ever" if the reasoning is that tropers don't read and can't be trusted to know what they're doing. Misremembering the name of String Theory while describing how

• Conspiracy Theorist: Bob believes XYZ fringe theories, and in his office is an entire wall of newspaper clippings, scribbled notes, and photos with myriad strings connecting the pieces

does not change the trope concept you're describing.

Yeah, I think that rule is a load of crap, to be perfectly honest. I'm fine with not allowing redirects (gendered and US/UK spellings notwithstanding) as the main trope heading on a work page, but disallowing them from in-line use is dumb.

Edited by StarSword on May 18th 2024 at 3:12:13 PM