Talk:Doctor Biggles-Jones - Revision history

Geewunling at 06:34, 16 August 2011

2011-08-16T06:34:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 16 August 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)		: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
	::I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)		::I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
			:::As I said on my talk page, I am not even sure she is allowed to be at anything mentioning "Sidney". Not the GIJoe/TFG2, not the TFG2 and not ''The Ultimate Guide'' ever call her by her first name. I know little about the ''Joe'' brand, so I wouldn't know if there's some prominency argument to including "Sidney" (as I'm quite certain a few Joes and Cobras we have articles on were never named in TF fiction), but based solely on our regular system, she'd be at just "Biggles-Jones". Furthermore, I am not thoroughly opposed to keeping a title redirect, but I'd rather see it be limited to one. "Doctor" or "Dr.", it's just a matter of writing and two redirects appears frivolous. I believe she was called "Doctor Biggles-Jones" once (though that seems to be the only time she was named in the G2 comics) and "Dr. Biggles-Jones" at about every other opportunity. Then again, the wiki could make a rule on always writing titles in full, which would seem to me a nice, consistent rule. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 02:34, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Abates at 05:35, 16 August 2011

2011-08-16T05:35:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 16 August 2011
Line 2:		Line 2:
	: One talk page complaint, or perhaps one on my talk page, would've been enough. I would guess Abates to be the only one to bother deleting these and he usually waits a while to let others oppose the proposal.		: One talk page complaint, or perhaps one on my talk page, would've been enough. I would guess Abates to be the only one to bother deleting these and he usually waits a while to let others oppose the proposal.
	: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)		: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
			::I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Geewunling at 16:19, 8 August 2011

2011-08-08T16:19:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 8 August 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)		Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
			: One talk page complaint, or perhaps one on my talk page, would've been enough. I would guess Abates to be the only one to bother deleting these and he usually waits a while to let others oppose the proposal.
			: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: New page: Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--~~~~

2011-08-08T16:06:00Z

New page: Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--~~~~

New page

Why do we want to get rid of redirects? Our search sucks, and this is the work around. What's the cost of having them?--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:06, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 16 August 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)		: But on to my reasons for getting rid of redirects, if there's any reason our search sucks it's because redirects clutter up the suggested page list. Some redirects have purpose - you might notice I have left just "Biggles-Jones" alone and only ask all the title variations get removed. But others are just superfluous and often the result of a well-reasoned move and not worth the maintenance. And... I don't know if I am the only one to experience this, but I end up disappointed every time I click something that seems like a page I have not read before only to find it a redirect. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
	::I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)		::I've always thought that though we usually have articles at the persons name without any titles, we should always keep redirects with the titles on, because it's often what they're addressed as in official fiction. In this particular case, I don't know if we keep all the variations or not—I notice we don't have a redirect for "Doctor Sidney Biggles-Jones", but I think we should. OTOH, I'm not sure if anyone's likely to be typing "Doctor Biggles-Jones" in by itself. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 01:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
			:::As I said on my talk page, I am not even sure she is allowed to be at anything mentioning "Sidney". Not the GIJoe/TFG2, not the TFG2 and not ''The Ultimate Guide'' ever call her by her first name. I know little about the ''Joe'' brand, so I wouldn't know if there's some prominency argument to including "Sidney" (as I'm quite certain a few Joes and Cobras we have articles on were never named in TF fiction), but based solely on our regular system, she'd be at just "Biggles-Jones". Furthermore, I am not thoroughly opposed to keeping a title redirect, but I'd rather see it be limited to one. "Doctor" or "Dr.", it's just a matter of writing and two redirects appears frivolous. I believe she was called "Doctor Biggles-Jones" once (though that seems to be the only time she was named in the G2 comics) and "Dr. Biggles-Jones" at about every other opportunity. Then again, the wiki could make a rule on always writing titles in full, which would seem to me a nice, consistent rule. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 02:34, 16 August 2011 (EDT)