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)