9,386 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Whatlinkshere on unnamed character pages


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." Blue Rook  talk  contribs 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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.