Talk:Road (disambiguation)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I'll be glad to see this go. ---Blackout- 14:45, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- We don't have to delete it necessarily. It's still up for discussion.--RosicrucianTalk 14:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Why? It's useless. There is almost nothing here that isn't on another disambiguation page anyway. ---Blackout- 14:51, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- It's useful because someone with a fuzzy memory can think "What was that Transformer? Road something..." type it into the search field, and end up here.--RosicrucianTalk 14:57, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Are we going to do this with every word found in Transformer names? I mean, look at "blast". —Interrobang 15:09, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Exactly. ---Blackout- 15:13, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- And what would the problem with that be? Is this going to fill up our server space? Crash the system? Cause users to become hopelessly lost? I don't get the rampant hate-on for disambig pages like this. We should be thrilled to have collections of obscure pages linked together like this. (maybe I feel this way because I don't think each character page in question needs to be disambig'd back to this page. IMO it's enough to have the thing floating here, reachable by search page or redirect.) -- Repowers 16:29, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- In my mind, things that make our content easier to access for the casual reader are good things.--RosicrucianTalk 16:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Then we need to integrate it somehow. I like Rob's idea of not disambiging everyone it points to, but it could be added to those without. Heck, a redirect from "Road" will be enough to remove it from the Orphaned pages. I'm all fine for keeping it as long as it leaves that list somehow. --Bluestreak7 17:23, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Added. I'm surprised it didn't have that redirect before.--RosicrucianTalk 17:25, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Then we need to integrate it somehow. I like Rob's idea of not disambiging everyone it points to, but it could be added to those without. Heck, a redirect from "Road" will be enough to remove it from the Orphaned pages. I'm all fine for keeping it as long as it leaves that list somehow. --Bluestreak7 17:23, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- More pages to maintain and create = more time wasted. We have 9,365 articles already. Why not spend the time cleaning those up and creating articles that are actually needed instead of listing all the instances of "thunder" of "iron" in somebody's or something's name? And how far are we going to go with this? Are we going to list every instance of the -er/-ar/-or morpheme? —Interrobang 19:33, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- In my mind, things that make our content easier to access for the casual reader are good things.--RosicrucianTalk 16:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- And what would the problem with that be? Is this going to fill up our server space? Crash the system? Cause users to become hopelessly lost? I don't get the rampant hate-on for disambig pages like this. We should be thrilled to have collections of obscure pages linked together like this. (maybe I feel this way because I don't think each character page in question needs to be disambig'd back to this page. IMO it's enough to have the thing floating here, reachable by search page or redirect.) -- Repowers 16:29, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Exactly. ---Blackout- 15:13, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Are we going to do this with every word found in Transformer names? I mean, look at "blast". —Interrobang 15:09, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- It's useful because someone with a fuzzy memory can think "What was that Transformer? Road something..." type it into the search field, and end up here.--RosicrucianTalk 14:57, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- Why? It's useless. There is almost nothing here that isn't on another disambiguation page anyway. ---Blackout- 14:51, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
- That slippery slope runs both ways -- why do we need pages for Rigel III or Jeff or any of a billion other obscure and "useless" things? And... I mean... wasting time? Have you taken a look lately at the nature of our little enterprise here? Anyways, do you think someone who's discouraged from disambigging "Thunder" or whatever is really gonna go finish writing up Cybertron or something instead? Time allocation on a for-fun wiki doesn't really work that way. -- Repowers 19:50, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
The discussion seems to have stalled. My vote's in favour of keeping it, for much the same reasons as Rosicrucian and Repowers outline above. --abates 21:40, 7 September 2009 (EDT)