Difference between revisions of "Forum:Don't redirect player names to RS:BLP"

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Protected "Forum:Don't redirect player names to RS:BLP": Archive ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)))
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 21:34, 28 December 2020

Forums: Yew Grove > Don't redirect player names to RS:BLP
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 December 2020 by Liquid.

See: Forum:Redirect player names from SearchDigest to RS:BLP and RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Maikeru

It doesn't make sense to redirect Player Names that are mentioned on articles to a policy page that most readers will not care about. The previous thread was a bit muddled up with different cases of player names, so I'm going to list them all here:

  1. Players that are officially recognised, usually via the broadcast system (eg: sadden - first player to kill 4000% enrage Telos)
  2. Players that are first in a skill to a certain milestone (eg: Zezima - first to 99 Slayer)
  3. Players that are popular amongst the community (eg: Maikeru - a popular RuneScape streamer)
  4. Players that are unpopular amongst the community (eg: Khazard - some random pmod)

The previous thread mainly focused on the 3rd case, and unfortunately got closed in the direction that covered all cases. However, there was little discussion about every case, which is why I've raised this thread.

Group 1 and 2 names are currently mentioned on pages. Group 3 and 4 names are not mentioned anywhere. I propose that names which cover groups 1 and 2 be redirected to the page that mentions the player name (in the event of multiple pages, just redirect to the first occurrence). I also propose that groups 3 and 4 names do not redirect anywhere, and are simply dead links. I think it's a bad mindset that we need to create redirects for every single redlink in SearchDigest. Guys and girls, it's ok to not have redirects for every single search term. We don't need to link readers to policies.


Redirect 1 and 2 to relevant page, don't redirect 3 and 4 anywhere - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Support - +1 to the idea that not every SearchDigest redlink needs to be a page of some sort. We already have pretty solid rules for when and where player names are allowed to be mentioned in articles. If a player name is mentioned in an article, it's fine to redirect their username to that (as otherwise that would basically be the only search result anyway). Otherwise, we don't need to redirect them anywhere (and RS:BLP is probably not appropriate for people like The Old Nite anyway). This doesn't need to be complicated. ʞooɔ 08:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - How much digging do you do to redirect a player to the correct page, and where's the cut-off with this? For example, Maikeru was the first player to receive the Atonement achievement during Archaeology, would that be a redirect or would that be a non-redirect? Fire cape detail.png TzTok-Gas TM 14:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A basic mainspace search is probably sufficient. ʞooɔ 16:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I would consider that a "first", so I think a redirect is OK. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Support 2 only - First in skills is extremely limited in scope, so I have no issue if someone wants to limit that. Support red links for all popular and unpopular player account names.

While limiting to world broadcast firsts seems cut and dry, I have two issues with it:

  1. There were broadcasts for each 100% enrage for Telos all the way through to 4000%. Are all of those deserving of redirects? I would argue not.
  2. Cases where an individual was responsible for multiple firsts: For the example of Maikeru, the player was not only the first individual to receive the Atonement achievement, but also the first to receive the Leap of Faith achievement as well. Not to mention le me was first in 120 Arch and also certain achievements as well. Typically, this would result in a disambiguous page, but I don't support that for player names.

Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Haidro does mention that "in the event of multiple pages, just redirect to the first occurrence", which answers your second concern. However, I think it'd be more appropriate to redirect it to the most noteable achievement, rather than the first. Talk to Kelsey 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I glossed over that portion. That being said, it doesn't change my position. Defining notability of achievements is too subjective, and defining as first occurrence is too arbitrary (le me had several achievements as first prior to hitting 99 or 120 Archaeology, and I think most people would expect to see the 99 vs a random achievement). Rather than diving down either rabbit hole, I'd personally prefer to just not deal with it, since it is about players, not about game content. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
An additional difficulty to consider for #1 - how do you cite world first broadcasts with evidence, both for the person or for timing? For example, what's to stop me from claiming I was first to get 3000% enrage (not 4000%) at Telos, since it was a global broadcast, and making my name a redirect for that page? There's not really a a way to verify for it as the proposal is currently stated. For skills, there tend to be numerous player witnesses, but there are older skills where we have no idea who was first and probably never will. If someone can explain how this we are intending to accomplish this, depending on the robustness of the answer that would change my opinion. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Either redirect players to RS:BLP or nuke the [player name] page[s]. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the actual argument for redirecting to BLP? Why is that a good place to end up? ʞooɔ 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
My argument is the policy itself. Players don't deserve a page so instead of having them go to some random page where they are mentioned emboldening editors to create a page for them unbeknownst to the policy hence the redirect there so editors and readers know players should not get a page. Mentioning them is fine if allowed per the policy at the relevant places, but it shouldn't be redirected to one of those relevant places. So in my opinion it should be either redirected to RS:BLP or deleted with the comment that player pages are not allowed. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Has there ever been a single case where some has been "emboldened to create a page" for a player because of the result of a redirect going to a content page? That sounds wildly speculative... ʞooɔ 08:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
At least one example exists: Maikeru which was the catalyst that started these discussions in the first place. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't make sense here – there was no previous redirect for Maikeru. ʞooɔ 09:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There indeed was no redirect for Maikeru. It became a redirect after someone created it. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You said in your statement that having a redirect go to a random page where they are mentioned, emboldens players to create an article for them. I asked if you had an example of that. The Maikeru redirect is not an example of that, since no previous redirect existed. So that's not really a strong case for redirecting to BLP, is it? ʞooɔ 20:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You know what. Just nuke all the player pages and prevent them from being (re)created. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You say we should nuke all player pages. Why should we not let the user search for "Zezima", a player widely acknowledged by Jagex, be redirected to Skill Mastery? I'm not against the idea of nuking all these pages and letting the search result do its job, but I think this will be (1) disappointing to users and (2) perhaps encourage them to make the redirects. Hence why I want to create a standard for different types of players. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 00:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
They can't make redirects if the page is protected from (re)creation. ;) Also random players are more likely to make pages and not redirects as the latter involves some knowledge of wiki'ing. Protecting the page from (re)creation prevents both issues though. In my opinion we shouldn't treat players differently: we shouldn't have redirects for any of them. This might be disappointing for players, but I think it's more disappointing for players to not be able to look up information about players, but we're not the RuneScape Players wiki, we're the RuneScape wiki. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the proposal here actually to pre-emptively protect every player name that comes up (in SearchDigest or elsewhere)? That seems like a colossal waste of time, especially when the one player page creation in the last year+ that I'm familiar with, was deleted 30 seconds after creation. This seems like not a real problem. ʞooɔ 08:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
What is the proposal then? What pages would be protected, and why? ʞooɔ 08:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete all existing player name redirect pages and protect them from recreation and in the future any new ones should be deleted and protected from recreation as well. As players do NOT deserve pages as per the policy. My oppose will remain to stand and that is not going to change. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that these pages would get regularly created, to a point that would warrant protecting 100+ titles from creation? ʞooɔ 08:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I have to agree with Salix on this one. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    21:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Support 2 - Agree with everything Aescopalus has said. Talk to Kelsey 08:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Support 1&2 - I'm not really fussed about whether 3 and 4 are dead links, or redirected to the policy page. Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 08:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bump - This thread really should get more discussion. The previous thread didn't get much more discussion than this one did and I would rather not have multiple low-participation threads overturning each other. --LiquidTalk 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Shrug 1, Support 2, Oppose 3/4 - Agree with Aescopalus. Strongly oppose Salix. Players whose fame comes from skill mastery should redirect to the skill mastery page, as that is a simple and easy way to explain to curious searchers why they are well-known. I toss-up on players whose fame comes from other in-game achievements; mainspace search is probably enough to catch it in trivia, especially for those with multiples. Players whose popularity comes from non-game sources should simply not have redirects--with the possible exception of Golden Gnome winners, which is where I think a Maikeru or similar redirect would actually make sense. Elydda (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Support 1&2 - Also not strongly opposed to 3&4 at least for very common searches. Agree that Golden Gnomes or Player advocacy group deserve redirects if they get searched, but I also fully agree that not every player name in search digest needs to have a redirect. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - There appears to be rough consensus for 1 (with concerns about just how limited in scope this is), clear consensus for 2, and no solid consensus on what we should do for 3/4. Would appreciate more input from others on this before thinking about closing it jayden 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Indifferent to 1 and 2, Oppose 3 and 4 - While I can see wanting to recognize significant achievements, it opens the door for vanity, unsupported claims, and edit wars. Proposal: create a 'Notable player achievements' (or whatever name) page that consolidates everything we consider important onto one page. If a player's name is on the page, they get a redirect to that page (and that page only). If not, they don't. Oshtur (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this really open the door any more than all of the other player name references on the wiki? ʞooɔ 18:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
From a purely technical aspect, no, but I think the more player name links that exist and the more visible they become, the more people will try to find a way to work their own names into the Wiki. Note: I've also gone back and changed my support status to more accurately reflect my thoughts. Overall, I'd just as soon see no player name redirects at all ('search for articles containing' exists for a reason), but I'm not particularly opposed to cases 1 and 2. Oshtur (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The proposal will be adopted as follows:

  1. Players who are officially recognized by Jagex in some way, for example, via the broadcast system or official mentions, and whose name appears on an article (usually in the Trivia section) can have their names redirect to the article. In the event where one player is mentioned on multiple articles, the most notable should be the target of the redirect. In the event there is any disagreement about which accomplishment is the most notable, default to the earliest mention.
  2. Players who are the first to a notable milestone can have their names redirect to the milestones article, such as Skill mastery or 200 million experience. In the event where one player is mentioned on multiple milestones, the earliest milestone should be the target.
  3. Players who are famous or infamous in the community and who do not fall into one of the two above categories should not have redirects. Their pages should remain as redlinks.

RS:BLP will be updated with the above. --LiquidTalk 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)