User:Rich Farmbrough/bugs/110

Minor planet redirects
Hi! I noticed an apparent bug with one or some of your recent edits:

Example(s)
 

Explanation
These redirects are incorrect (the part between the @signs is the problem, probably). Furthermore, a minor problem with as far as I have checked all the redirects you created is that the section element of it (the part after the " # ") doesn't work, because the page doesn't have sections but is composed from transcluded subpages (which I tried to get rid off but which was rejected by you...). Fram (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, the 49000s needed special measures. The sections are out by one, and do actually work.Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

By the way, any reason why you delete the other, informative categories from these redirects? Wouldn't it be more useful to let things like Category:Asteroids named for people, Category:Discoveries by Eugene Merle Shoemaker, Category:Discoveries by Carolyn S. Shoemaker and Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1988 (all from 48416 Carmelita) stand? It seems like useful information, even for a redirect. Fram (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be consensus to do so. Personally I would prefer to keep the stubs, as you know. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Any link for that consensus? It seems strange. I don't have a problem with the redirects as such though, they don't seem to contain much (if anything) not included in the lists; but I don't see a reason why a category like Category:Discoveries by Carolyn S. Shoemaker should be nearly-emptied because of the creation of these redirects. Fram (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my feeling, but take a look at this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUSP23cmAE you can see the scale of the discoveries. The transient illuminated patches are indicative of studies, you can even see "fingers" representing something more fine-grained (not days, I think) later in the video.  Were we to go down this road we would need to maintain the addition of new redirects for new discoveries.  Discussion, mainly between HEADBOMB and RJH here. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the link to the discussion, I hadn't seen that one yet (it is all rather fragmented). Again, I can find no one there advocating clearly for the removal of the categories, and RJH in doubt about what to do. I would personally prefer letting them stay (as it doesn't seem useful to remove this information), but getting a more clear consensus for the removal of them is also an option of course. Fram (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note in particular that only about half of the C Shoemaker items are listed in the category as are listed at Carolyn S. Shoemaker.  An I suspect this list is outdated. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Looking further, I can find no reference to anyone asking to remove or agreeing with the removal of the categories, I can find User:Headbomb at Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50 asking "Also should categories be preserved on the redirects, or can they be scrapped without any great loss?", to which no reply was given as far as I can see. According to Categorizing redirects, I see no problem (and a few advantages) in keeping those categories, which can not be introduced in the main lists. Can you please get consensus about the removal (or not) of these categories before continuing with this task? Fram (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)