Talk:Flywheels
WHY did you got out of your way to change the Battletrap (G1) link to Battletrap? It's VALID LINK. And it's a link that will REMAIN VALID WITHOUT CHANGING if there's ever another toy named Battletrap. Why did you make it less robust?
Explain. -Derik 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The only things that linked to Battletrap (G1) were outdated pages (one of them To Be Deleted). With those outdated pages fixed (both of them), the redirect page was no longer necessary. That link should not be used, ever, until another Battletrap exists. --ItsWalky 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've never programmed and don't know how.
Tell me, do you have any concept of the logistical headache this short-sighted policy will create in the long run? Shot doesn't flow uphill, why do youw ant your editors to work harder to achive the same net result? The end result will just be links that got unchanged when formerly un-diambig'd articles go disambiged, essentially becoming 'broken' insofar that they no longer link to the article they're supposed to. -Derik 22:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Preparing for every contingency takes way more time than fixing only what's wrong later. --ItsWalky 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And yet, it's MY time. And it works perfectly well with anyone else who wants to make 'dumb' links. And you're spending YOUR time undoign the work of MY time... so that in the future if there is ever another Flywheeels, you can again spend YOUR time redoing what I did, which you undid.
- And if you'll forgive me for saying so- I can't necessarily remember off the top of my head if there's been another character with the name Battletrap, Wheeljack, Commetor, Slingshot, Fireblast or Fungitron. "Shit, did Hasbro ever re-use the name Mainframe?" I can either take the time to look it up for every link I make, or I can just link to Mainframe (G1) and know it's right. Not only is it right- but it'll STAY right if Hasvbro ever does rename that most-generic-of-names.
- But not if you keep deleting redirects. -Derik 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to nip this "I see you've never programmed" thing right in the bud; I'm a programmer and one of the things you quickly learn is that's completely wrong. There are a variety of reasons why you don't do this, most of which have already been covered in some way or another, but it's really worth pointing out how absurd bringing that up is. You do not ever program something that's currently useless but will do something in the future; you implement things either they come up, or development progresses. Putting in backdoors in anticipation of something that will happen in the future is TERRIBLE design philosophy, plain and simple. --Suki Brits 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
