Editing 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 [[[DF2010:Fun]]] - it's all [[cv:losing|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. ; ) <br />  --[[User:Albedo|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. [[User:Emi|Emi]] 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing the thoughts on related issues, but "stone", "cheese" - these are game terms. Which is ''not'' what the OP was about:
 this approach would then become a model for any non-game term that is non-version specific...
The issue is ''non''-game terms that are ''non''-version specific. [[Fun]]. [[Invader]]. [[Beard]]. [[Urist]]. Something like [[unfortunate accident]] or [[dam]] is certainly not a game-term, but just as certainly ''is'' version dependent, or at least in the "solutions" suggested. --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, I missed the non-game portion before, though I'm still not sure I understand the issue. Anything that is version specific will have pages in the various version namespaces. Anything that is not version specific will exist in the mainspace. If we assume that "losing" is version specific (which is debatable) then "fun" as an alternate term for "losing" becomes version specific for purposes of redirects within the wiki. Though it depends on how we look at fun. We could also make fun a mainspace page, that talks a bit about losing in general and then has links to version specifics about losing.

:In my mind there doesn't need to be a distinction between game terms and non-game terms. If there would ever need to be version-specific articles regarding invaders, then we have multiple versions. If the terms are essentially synonymous (fun and losing, or game terms "stone" and "rock" perhaps) then they redirect to the same cv: page. I know the OP's not regarding game terms, but I don't think non-synonymous redirects (like cheese to cheesmaker) should happen from the mainspace. Though it is perhaps needless in some cases, the potential effort it saves later if a new page needs to be created, is pretty sizable. 

:So my process would look like:
:#Does the page this term would eventually resolve to (through redirects or not) contain version specific info?
:::Yes: 
:::#Create a redirect to a cv page.
:::#The cv page must be "synonymous" with the redirect page (ie fun -> losing)
::::The only exception to the above, is when a term would '''never''' have it's own article, in which case it would be acceptable to have a redirect like (cheese -> cheese maker).
:::No:
:::#Create the article in the mainspace.

:That works for all types of terms, game terms, non-game terms, version specific, and version independent, does it not? Any thoughts? [[User:Emi|Emi]] 17:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)