Forum:Category redlinks not red

This may well have been discussed before or something, but I've just noticed it now - since when did non-existent categories change to blue, as if their pages already exist? Any reasoning for the change?--Acer4666 12:35, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * It happened at least a few weeks ago. It was discussed in one of the technical updates blog.  DaRanger  |  Talk to Me  |   What I've Done  12:39, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * It was an intentional change by Wikia, because categories with pages in them "exist". It's since caused a lot of people to try to delete a category that doesn't exist.


 * Probably one of the more stupid "features". The product team thinks red links are "scary", next thing you know they'll get rid of red links for everything else.


 * The idea behind a red link is to get you to create the page. If you aren't for certain whether or not it already exists, that just defeats the purpose entirely. 13:34, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've found the update: User_blog:Dopp/Technical_Update:_June_28,_2011. I was about to say "Oh dear, I missed the debate so couldn't join in", but reading through the comments I see that the staff have put forward a few mild replies to the arguments against and then got bored and kept it anyway, brilliant. Ah well, spelling mistakes on categories will just have to go unnoticed, what joy


 * @Charitwo - yes, it seems they'll do anything to keep new editors, even if it means not informing them that what they are doing is wrong. It seems that all and any lengths will be gone to to make sure new editors are accomodated, even if it means disenfranchising the veteran ones who contribute most of their content. It's like 10% of the editors create 95% of wikia's content, but that ten percent is sold down the river to make sure the 90% of passers by have a nice carefree time.--Acer4666 13:38, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that it was very much done by fiat. The response to our protests was essentially, “This is how it is going to be, we have decided, we will not listen to you on this matter.” It was quite clear that this topic was not open for debate. The response was chilling inasmuch as it froze discussion. We counted on those red links to let us know when we had spelled a category incorrectly. And, since we no longer see a red link, we don’t know that there is a category at the bottom of a page that needs to be created. I predict that the number of non-existent categories across Wikia will rise because we will not have the red links to remind us to create them. It’s the sole exception to the red link rule. But, sole for how long? — Spike Toronto  09:50, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

To wikia staff: The effects of this change are starting to show themselves, even though you've locked commenting on the blog post. this person was blocked for "creating nonsense categories" on true blood, and on wiki 24 we have had a a user treating categories as if they were youtube-style search keywords, and other contributions from new users not realising the categories they add don't exist. The reason? They don't show up as red, letting them know that they've added something non-existent. The effect? New users get their edits reverted, get told they're doing something wrong, and feel less welcome to edit.--Acer4666 09:58, August 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm running a bot for doing maintenance on categories of several images, because we're renaming some of those categories. The bot nicely link the categories added/removed in the edit summary, but the edit history or the contributions page is displaying both blue, so there's no way to visually state whether the bot is making any mistake when doing the replace or not unless I manually enter on every link to see if the category exists or not. The same with the template that links all categories for easy navigation. All links are blue despite some of them are being deleted and thus replaced by the new ones, making incredibly hard to spot any typo on them and requiring me to click on every link.
 * Of course, Staff members that only make such decisions and do not edit on any wiki do not know what the "maintenance" term means and what work involves. That's why Wikia is becoming more of a social network every day, and they release tools or changes that make maintenance work harder. I could understand this situation, but what I don't understand is why even when we point out how they are mistaken about this they completely ignore us. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 10:21, August 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Switching this over to Forum:Support Requests, since it really isn't a general discussion. It's a bug.
 * And throwing in a Staff needed for good measure. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 10 Aug 2011 5:12 PM Pacific


 * Technically, it's not a bug; it was intentional. Although, a staff member commenting on this again would be nice. I, for one, wish this was reverted. I have to go through every blue category link now to see if they are linked correctly or if the page was never created. Rappy 00:31, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it’s great for the reader, but for anyone editing — which is what we want everyone to do — it’s awful. I mean Dopp’s logic when she discussed this with us on one of the staff blogs had merit to it. But, upon closer inspection, upon further thought, the reasoning is specious . A category may be populated the minute someone types it in on a page, but it is not created until someone actually makes it so. The speciousness in the reasoning is that even incorrectly spelled categories are populated, but they ought never be created. And, because the person inputting an incorrect category never saw the red link, s/he never knew of the mistake. And those pile up, and pile up, and pile up, until there is a huge amount of category cleanup to be done. How is that improving the Wikia experience? How is that not making our jobs harder? — Spike Toronto  09:07, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Intentionality does not prevent something from being a bug. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 12 Aug 2011 8:46 AM Pacific


 * According to Wikipedia, "A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways." So it's not a bug, it's just a bad "feature".


 * Okay! Enough on whether it is or isn’t a bug already! That’s a side issue. Regardless of whether it’s a bug, the Staff needed template is a good call so that we can involve them. Besides, it’s not a bug Fandy: It’s a genuine skunk, smack dab in the middle of the room getting ready to let loose and create an enormous, stinking pile of work for us all to do! Smiley.png — Spike Toronto  16:21, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, we're working on a compromise for this situation, and will be able to announce more about it later this week. --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 16:09, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dopp! — Spike Toronto  17:02, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * "we're working on a compromise"
 * Since what everyone is complaining about is the fact that the distinction (category exists|category doesn't exist) has to be shown on the page, the only possible compromise would be for wikia to make the non existent categories to have a third type of CSS so that by default there is no red links and by costume CSS the links can be made red for non existent categories.
 * But I bet wikia won't do that. Instead they will do:
 * Make all category links red
 * Make it so that when a non existent category is entered, the person can't save the page
 * Put the real list of red links in some other/far fetched place thus accomplishing nothing
 * Include another feature in wikialabs to turn on the red links
 * Same as above but in the mediawiki namespace
 * Same as above but in the admin thingy
 * Same as above but in the toolbar thingy
 * Same as above but in the theme design thingy
 * Same as above but... Wait... Haven't these guys ever heard of standards and organization!? Geee!!!
 * Make it so that when a non existent category is entered, there is a huge pop up
 * 20:19, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20:19, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * "the only possible compromise would be for wikia to make the non existent categories to have a third type of CSS so that by default there is no red links and by custom CSS the links can be made red for non existent categories."
 * That is exactly what we're doing. It will be live on Wednesday. The distinction is that we'll allow this custom CSS for personal view, but not for wiki-wide changes (so visitors can have a consistent experience across wikia). --Dopp http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 20:38, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, that defeats the entire purpose. Red-link categories need to show for all editors, and especially the inexperienced ones who will never bother to switch on some kind of option for their personal viewing. The inexperienced editors are the ones most likely to make non-existent or miss-spelled categories, so they are the ones who most need the visual feedback on when a category they linked does not exist. Gardimuer { ʈalk } 20:55, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Gardimuer, this will not solve the problem of new admins attempting to delete categories that don't exist.


 * Dopp: Why CSS? If you are going to make this opition, why not allow it through Preferances?


 * If that really is the "compromise" then words cannot express how low I think the competence of wikia is. For now I'll assume you were in the bathroom when this was discussed and so you are passing incorrect information.
 * There's even better solutions than that in my list of stupid things that could be done. It's sad.
 * @Eladkse: these guys are probably the ones that decide such things as "which shade of pink?", they aren't allowed anywhere near the preferences.
 * @Gardimuer: it might be a good idea to use "content creators" instead of "editors". I have a feeling that the Indonesians working on this project can't distinguish the two concepts based on context alone.
 * 22:10, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nidek, I understand your frustration, but please try to remain civil and assume good faith. Flinging insults is not constructive when we are trying to reach a positive conclusion. --Gardimuer { ʈalk } 23:58, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Dopp did you read my post above about this change affecting new editors, and the examples I gave? Do you have a response to that please? This "fix" does not address my point at all--Acer4666 23:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dopp - do ANY of the people making these decisions edit wikis and have to worry about category hierarchy? I am assuming the answer to that is no. Red link categories to editors mean 1 of two things.


 * This category is incorrectly spelled or
 * This category has not yet been added to the category tree for browsing.


 * For case #1, the user finds/realizes the mistake and corrects it.
 * For case #2, the user/maintainer of the categories correctly adds the category to the tree it belongs in.


 * The main issue here, that most of us are complaining about, is issue #2. What ends up happening is editors create a large amount of pages with a wide-spread category setup... but never realizes the categories need to be 'created' and added to the category tree. Other users click categories to 'read more' (remember the details bar and how important that was at the time?) but essentially get a bunch of orphaned pages that don't allow the user to view other categories that should be in the same branch, or browse to parent categories to view other branches.


 * Per Gardimuer, this compromise simply does not work and the entire thing needs to be reverted back to default MediaWiki. This change helps no one and only makes those users that are in charge of category setup work 3x as hard to do their job than usual. Rappy 01:03, August 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would accept this custom CSS class as a solution if and only if we are allowed to apply a custom CSS wiki wide (for all users, registered or unregistered) to distinguish non-existant category pages from the rest. At least wikis that have a clear category structure and maintenance can fix and let users see that they should fix those categories, while wikis with no sense of wiki structure like Glee or other staff-favourite ones can stay with that unorganized schema. The way Wikia try to control the core wikia features is not rational here. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 09:17, August 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm all for Wikia enhancing base MediaWiki wiki functionality, but making non-existent categories show as non-redlinks is actually breaking core MediaWiki functionality. It would be nice to hear why Wikipedia and the MediaWiki core team got it all wrong and why. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 16 Aug 2011 12:33 PM Pacific


 * I'm pretty sure wikia's official response will be something along the lines of "Because we can and there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up, go away, or be blocked." This has pretty much been their response so far for anything that doesn't make sense and results in complaints. That said, it would be a pleasant surprise if wikia actually gave a well thought out reason and was willing to engage in a discussion about it, instead of just giving us a one sentence "explanation" for the change and then ignoring all other posts on the subject, but I wouldn't suggest anyone hold their breath waiting for something so close to basic customer support or nice as that. - 19:45, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Recently found out about this change
I just found out about this change from June! It explains some weird things I noticed now and then the last few weeks concerning categories. I couldn't figure out why I was ending up on uncreated category pages. This is baffling to editors old and new. I don't see how it helps anybody's experience. Most new editors don't create categories at all in my experience.

Editors who have had a few edits soon learn that incorrect category names, uncreated categories, or misspelled ones, are red. Just like Wikipedia. If I wanted new baffling experimental features I would go to the Strategy Wiki on Wikimedia, or Twiki, or some other non-standard wiki. I want my MEDIAWIKI. :) --Timeshifter 23:39, August 16, 2011 (UTC)