This is theoretical at the moment, and may have been suggested and rejected before, but just a solution to the inability to do a "whatlinkshere" for specific unnamed characters - could we set up redirect pages, that would link to the entry, so if the entry needed to be moved/removed, then you'd just have to change the redirect page? Then all links would be to the redirect, and none would go to the actual unnamed character page except the redirects.
I realise this would be a truckload of work to implement, but what about it as a theory? Is that sort of wanton use of redirects frowned upon? Would there be flaws in this I haven't thought of?--Acer4666 17:14, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
- The outcome would be sort of useful for the very experienced, veteran editors, but... it's just too much work for not enough benefit. Probably no more than 6 individual editors would ever use those redirects to explore the What Links Here functionality they would provide. To me it is an extremely onerous half-measure compared to the fuller solution of creating separate articles for each unnamed. (Individual articles have been discussed before and I don't consider it off the table, but clearly it never happened.) This one's a tough call. The consensus seems to be "the unnamed pages don't have the What Links Here functionality, but that's not 'broken' enough to require changing." 02:46, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, fair enough. I think just going through the links to those pages to make sure everything's pointing to the right place would be a good thing anyway, as I know from going through the unnamed government agents page that there were a fair few headings that had been changed and all the links were broken, so I guess there are many other broken links floating around...but maybe sometime in the future I'll revisit this if I'm gonna go through the links.
- As for splitting them into separate articles, I've seen some discussion about that but I don't really like the idea. The thought that we give them their own names anyway on the headings, so why not make them page titles, doesn't work for me - the point being that made-up names is fine for an oou list page, but not when translated into separate, iu pages. I also think the names work in the context of a list split up by season, but having the names floating round with no context wouldn't really work. imo--Acer4666 09:55, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with BlueRook about the redirects, and I agree with Acer about the splitting. I'm still not sold on the idea of having separate articles with "random" names flying around. I think that more-or-less strict organization is one of the things I like about this wiki. Thief12 17:24, September 18, 2011 (UTC)