Hoi,
I am totally happy for Wikipedia to have redirects. I do not mind as long
as it stops there,.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 October 2014 22:24, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think we have to look at what people actually use: overwhelmingly, that
> is redirects, not labelled section transclusion.
>
> Redirects are lightweight, in terms of editor time, and they do the job.
>
> Transclusion is of course valuable in particular cases; but trying to
> maintain multiple different contexts for the same material would be quite a
> headache - tricky to create and maintain, and utterly inflexible if
> somebody wants to re-shape the article.
>
> The bottom line here is that we should face reality: people are not going
> to create labelled section transclusions, still less have to put up with
> maintaining them, just to make wikidata have some more sitelinks.
> Realisticly, we would end up with a handful of such transclusions, at
> most. Whereas people create redirects every day.
>
>
> Yes, a redirect is just a redirect. It's not perfect. But it's usually
> good enough.
>
> Take Daniel Havell for instance:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell
>
> the section it points to is recognisably part of a larger article. In
> fact it has been written to be part of that larger article, and depends on
> it for context. The section is not standalone content. This is the deal
> with redirects, one which I do believe readers understand and accept.
>
> Yes, if somebody changed the section name, the redirect would no longer
> point to the section (unless they had left an anchor). But the redirect
> would still point to the right article; and given that at best redirects
> are just redirects, and depend on the rest of the article for context
> anyway, the less precise link is not *such* a big loss.
>
>
> The key thing about allowing sitelinks to redirects is that they are the
> mechanism that is actually used.
>
> The sitelink should point to where on the wiki there is content that
> matches the actual meaning of the item. If that happens to be a redirect,
> so be it.
>
> The best can be the enemy of the good. I simply do not believe that
> labelled section transclusions will happen to any great degree; and I think
> editors would find even those that did to be an endless pain to maintain.
> They are not a promise for which it is worth sacrificing the benefits of
> all the redirects we should and could be sitelinking to.
>
> -- James.
>
>
>
> On 20/10/2014 20:44, Derric Atzrott wrote:
>
>> There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is
>>> that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if
>>> they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing
>>> to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since
>>> the section title can change.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia supports section labelling:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
>>>
>>
>> I would support this as a solution. It seems to solve the issue that
>> using
>> redirects in site links wishes to solve.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Derric Atzrott
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
