Talk:Fun

Fun redirect

It strikes me that the term "fun" is ~not~ version dependent, it's a euphemism for "losing". Whether a link from a 40d:article or cv:article or typed in as a Search term, it's still "losing". That is, "fun" = "losing", regardless of the current version-specifics of losing (which may or may not be version dependent, but that's a diff discussion). But "Losing" is the target article (cv or not). So the redirect should go directly to cv:losing, not cv:fun - since there is no version distinction between 23a:fun and 40d:fun and fun:2010 - it's all cv:losing. (Unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible!) O.o

Whatever is ultimately agreed, then this approach would then become a model for any non-game term that is non-version specific, and we can avoid this sort of cold edit-war in the future. ; )
--Albedo 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in general when we're using the CV: alias in redirects, the redirect should always match the article name. Basically page foo redirects to cv: foo, not cv:foo maker. It's probably unnecessary in some locations, like this specific example, but for instance, Cheese has in the past redirected towards cheese maker. Though cheese is probably still not the best example, it's better than "fun". If Cheese ever were to get it's own article, then the redirects would have to be changed around. It occurs to me that it's an even worse example now, because there's only one redirect involved. But consider articles where there are perhaps several common things that would be searched. For sake of argument, lets pretend chese, cheese, and cheesee were all accepted alternates to each other. They should all redirect to cv:cheese and then the cv:cheese article can redirect to the appropriate cheese maker version. Although cheese is an unlikely topic to ever have it's own article, this simplifies the process of creating an article for a topic that was previously a subsection of another article.

As for cases like fun redirecting to cv: while I'm fine with the redirect being cv:losing, as it does make plenty of sense. I'm thinking that it still may be best to have all cv alias redirects be of the form mentioned earlier. There isn't really any problem with fun redirecting to cv: fun which would redirect to losing, and it simplifies redirect creation in the sense that you don't have people debating individual topics, when in the end it doesn't really matter. However it also occurs to me that the foo vs cv:foos thing I've mentioned else where isn't a completely accurate rule. It makes sense for Foo and Foos and foo to all redirect to say cv:Foos, as they are all (more or less) the same thing. Rock and Rocks should both redirect to cv:rock and then if another redirect is necessary, cv:rock should hold it. As such, since fun and losing (when regarding Dwarf Fortress) mean the same thing, I think it is appropriate to have fun redirect to cv: losing. Not because fun is version independent, but because it is essentially an alternate spelling of losing.

TL;DR: fun and losing are essentially synonyms on this wiki. Fun should redirect to cv: losing because it's a euphemism -- not because it's version independent (because as a euphemism of losing, which may have version specifics, but that's another debate). However I think in general we shouldn't shorten redirects like cheese -> cv:cheese (40d: cheese currently) -> 40d: cheese maker. wgMaxRedirects has been set by Briess such that double redirects are followed, so they work, don't worry. Emi 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)