Talk:On fire

Against Deletion

Redirects are made for use in the search function, not (except in the case of policies in projects) as shorthand to be used for linking. "Orphaned" redirects (if that phrase even means anything useful) are not deletion fodder. --ஸ ķ̌ɎǾshĺ 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are already several cases where "on fire" appears on this wiki, related to burning. A user might type "On fire" to find out more, so I'm against deletion as well. Manifold 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am against deletion. On fire is referenced on several different skills, and people (particularly new players, who didn't play the original) might type it, as Manifold said. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 03:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The @ symbol is not something to start with and so I made it a more appropriate topic (to fit the responses). Anyway, On fire in all skills were changed to burning by others. Why would someone type on fire? When if they go to a skill and click, they can see that it goes to burning. Simple. So, I don't see why this has to "stay" to be honest. Ariyen 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my post? It's not about linking, it's about searching, in case they didn't look at another page's link, but just /wiki'd it. (Some skills in GW1 said "target is set on fire" as opposed to wording which used the word "burning", and what else would this mean?) And why are @ symbols not something to start with, pray tell? It's a perfectly legitimate unicode character which doesn't serve another function in wikiformatting, and as such it hasn't broken anything. --ஸ Kyoshi 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at the link it's self that's used via those "words" - it's "burning" aka... [[burning|on fire]] see? If you look in the history, someone removed the redirect through this link... I don't see someone looking up "on fire" moot point I can see the skills per page or click on the link per skill. It's about like someone searching up noob - to me just speculation of what someone "might" do... Ariyen 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point of redirects. 04:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Even ones that are pointless?.... Okay, doesn't make sense as I see it being one of the least things happening. Ariyen 05:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Felix means that thinking of what someone "might" search for is the point of redirects: common misspellings, capitalization, and (this is the important one here) interchangeable but non-official terms. --ஸ Kyoshi 07:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I shifted all the links towards burning from on fire to remove the redirect, but I didn't tag for deletion the redirect page, because as someone above said, "on fire" is actually what many of the links say and it's for searches. Leave it alone, i say, it's just a redirect page. Thering 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Always consider those without knowledge of all the mechanics or wiki. I'm against deletion. ShadowRunner 19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying that most would not type on fire. It's silly and stupid. Any person can go via a profession they'd know or skills, not by typing in various words. More than anything, they'd probably search those words on a search engine rather than here. Ariyen 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And why does the fact (or rather, your opinion) that few people will visit through this redirect warrant its deletion, if it's not likely to be used for anything else and if it's something that the people who don't fit in that "most" category will search for?

Moreover, if you do delete this redirect, those who type this in (after seeing the words in several places on the wiki) will be sent to the god-awful wiki search page. Do you see that as the better option? --ஸ Kyoshi 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, the deletion tag's been removed, but I'm also against deletion, fwiw. --★KOKUOU★ 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)