Template talk:Redirect target
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Purpose
So, what is the purpose of this template? Why is it desirable or necessary to avoid linking to a redirect page in Template:Decks (the only user of this template)? --Corveroth (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Theme decks, intro packs, etc. are often sections on a single article for all decks from the set. Linking to them via a redirect will send you to the top of that page instead of the relevant section. —Fenhl 09:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't Shadows_over_Innistrad/Intro_packs#Unearthed_Secrets work perfectly fine? - Yandere Sliver
09:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not for decks which have their own articles. —Fenhl 13:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ah I understand. Most of decks don't have individual pages anymore. (Well, they do but they only contain redirects) And usually nothing links to these articles except for the decks template. Shouldn't we then just deltet the redirect articles if they hinder more then help? - Yandere Sliver 13:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Removing the redirect pages would decrease the number of transclusions of this template, but also remove the convenience of being able to look up a deck by name. An alternative would be to check the subpage first and only use the separate article if it doesn't exist (which will still be required for the preconstructed Commander decks, like Sworn to Darkness.) —Fenhl 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ah I understand. Most of decks don't have individual pages anymore. (Well, they do but they only contain redirects) And usually nothing links to these articles except for the decks template. Shouldn't we then just deltet the redirect articles if they hinder more then help? - Yandere Sliver
- Not for decks which have their own articles. —Fenhl 13:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't Shadows_over_Innistrad/Intro_packs#Unearthed_Secrets work perfectly fine? - Yandere Sliver
- I thought about this for a while. In most cases you would expect a link to the corresponding sub-page. All Core, Block and Starter sets should have the respective sub-pages contain decks. I know there are some exceptions which I still want to update. The Commander decks link separately, which makes sense when you consider the size of commander decks. Instead of having an #ifexists call we could simply assume single pages for commander and sub-pages for everything else. Perhaps add another named parameter to switch the default behavior of the template. This would probably get rid of the whole redirecting and ifexists issue, right? - Yandere Sliver 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- If we want to be able to look up decks by name, why don't they have their own articles? Even if many of those articles are simple redirects, why is that a problem? To be clear, the problem that got the other page flagged is that this template is effectively adding up to two #ifexists calls on top of the one in the Decks template, adding up a maximum of 18 calls per usage of Template:Decks. I think that, at least in a Lua module, I could knock that down to just one call per deck, but I really don't grasp why it's necessary in the first place. --Corveroth (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, we have currently two systems in organizing theme decks. One system is one page for each deck and the other system is one subpage for all theme decks which belong to a certain release. From what I grasped we started out using the first system and switched somewhere to the second and retroactively organized many releases to fit the new organisation system. Currently the second one is the more commonly used organisation system at least for expansions. At the moment only 4 expansions do separate entries and I plan to get them in line with the other releases. However some of the newer them decks like the Innistrad release never got individual pages for the decks and therefore also don't have redirects to the subpage, while older releases have this. I personally like the subpage solution better because it makes the articles easier to maintain. Well, and this is how we do it. I hope I could explain it well it is a bit convoluted. - Yandere Sliver 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, we have currently two systems in organizing theme decks. One system is one page for each deck and the other system is one subpage for all theme decks which belong to a certain release. From what I grasped we started out using the first system and switched somewhere to the second and retroactively organized many releases to fit the new organisation system. Currently the second one is the more commonly used organisation system at least for expansions. At the moment only 4 expansions do separate entries and I plan to get them in line with the other releases. However some of the newer them decks like the Innistrad release never got individual pages for the decks and therefore also don't have redirects to the subpage, while older releases have this. I personally like the subpage solution better because it makes the articles easier to maintain. Well, and this is how we do it. I hope I could explain it well it is a bit convoluted. - Yandere Sliver
- If we want to be able to look up decks by name, why don't they have their own articles? Even if many of those articles are simple redirects, why is that a problem? To be clear, the problem that got the other page flagged is that this template is effectively adding up to two #ifexists calls on top of the one in the Decks template, adding up a maximum of 18 calls per usage of Template:Decks. I think that, at least in a Lua module, I could knock that down to just one call per deck, but I really don't grasp why it's necessary in the first place. --Corveroth (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Don't ask me... We have these in most cases. I think it is not a bad idea to have them, but somehow this make the redirecting thing necessary.- Yandere Sliver 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, from which the underlying module was sourced, doesn't really use the module. The only actual usage I can find is in the test case logic for their redirect template (and the require statement that includes it means it shows as transcluded on any page using that template, even if the logic never reaches the statements that rely on it). If they don't actually need this on any live page, I seriously doubt we do. --Corveroth (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- As soon as all decks other than Commander decks have been moved to the subpages, we can remove this part of the template logic and use the deck type (first parameter) to set the behavior. —Fenhl 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The dirty deed is done... On a serious note. The preconstructed deck section is pretty much cleaned up now. You can go ahead. - Yandere Sliver 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I removed redirect target from the Decks call. This template is now officially no longer in use. :D - Yandere Sliver 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I removed redirect target from the Decks call. This template is now officially no longer in use. :D - Yandere Sliver
- The dirty deed is done... On a serious note. The preconstructed deck section is pretty much cleaned up now. You can go ahead. - Yandere Sliver
- As soon as all decks other than Commander decks have been moved to the subpages, we can remove this part of the template logic and use the deck type (first parameter) to set the behavior. —Fenhl 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, from which the underlying module was sourced, doesn't really use the module. The only actual usage I can find is in the test case logic for their redirect template (and the require statement that includes it means it shows as transcluded on any page using that template, even if the logic never reaches the statements that rely on it). If they don't actually need this on any live page, I seriously doubt we do. --Corveroth (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)