Talk:Russian campaign (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Using Russian Campaign as a link to a redirect
[edit]- 17:03, 29 April 2014 ConradPino (bypass redirect to French invasion of Russia)
- 15:20, 24 May 2015 PBS Undid revision 606354611 by ConradPino,The whole point or the dab page is to use the redirect as an alternative valid name. there is no reason to bypass it.
- 06:39, 29 May 2015 ConradPino (bypass Russian Campaign redirect but keep original displayed text - small performance increases growing without control add up to big performance hits
- 14:22, 29 May 2015 PBS (Undid revision 664526618 by ConradPino WP:NOTBROKEN "Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken" -- Take it to the talk page for further discussion if you disagree (see WP:BRD))
@user:ConradPino Please see WP:BRD, WP:NOTBROKEN "Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken" and Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @User:PBS What is the process that fixes double redirects that arise when the redirect target is moved? – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure one can of course do it manually, but usually (now days) it is done by a bot and I do not know if there is one or more that monitor for double redirects. If you ask at WT:RM someone who watches that page will probably be able to tell you. -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:PBS When redirects are bypassed or not used at all and a link target is moved, the existing link continues working via the new redirect created by the move. I have observed some editors seldom check "what links here" after the move to find and fix redirects to the old location (double redirect); certainly new editors deserve forbearance. I suggest you have conceded the current double redirect repair process is fraught with uncertainty. Further, I suggest eventually all Wikipedia links will be moved and their existing redirects broken. Does it not seem prudent to exercise an ounce of prevention (replacing redirects when editing) to avoid a pound of cure (editors leaving broken double redirects behind which disrupt users while a bot or another editor may or may not appear)? – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out guidance is against you. If the current page moves the other common name in English is the Russian Campaign. To other points. My experience is that the bots make the changes so it is a none issue and secondly even if they did not I do not see your concerns as justification to pre-emptively change links for all the reasons which are given in the guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:PBS When redirects are bypassed or not used at all and a link target is moved, the existing link continues working via the new redirect created by the move. I have observed some editors seldom check "what links here" after the move to find and fix redirects to the old location (double redirect); certainly new editors deserve forbearance. I suggest you have conceded the current double redirect repair process is fraught with uncertainty. Further, I suggest eventually all Wikipedia links will be moved and their existing redirects broken. Does it not seem prudent to exercise an ounce of prevention (replacing redirects when editing) to avoid a pound of cure (editors leaving broken double redirects behind which disrupt users while a bot or another editor may or may not appear)? – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:PBS Guidance is just such, I could cite WP:BB but such discussion obfuscates values, policy is a means to an end, not the end itself. You've not refuted redirect bypass prevents broken links where even perfect bots don't fix broken links concurrently with the target move (I pray one day they do). But nevertheless I reviewed your citation again more carefully and found it addresses the moved target issue and accepts the broken link risk for other valued benefits. I am now persuaded and accept your revert. Thank you for your time, you've been quite generous. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)