User talk:Hawke

Self-notes:

Need to find the actors for...
 * Korynn Fleming
 * Jarek Syris
 * Kyle Senesca
 * Drax Rendolen

Deleting Redirect Pages?
Is there a specific reason we're deleting redirect pages? Especially, without any pause to ask for input? They make it easier to find what I'm looking for when entering a URL directly and are commonly used in other wikis. -- Xerxes 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is an empty redirect (as in, a redirect page that has no pages linked to it) there is very little need to retain it. If there is already a redirect page for something similar (in this case, "DIREX Board"), then there's even more of a reason not to retain it. Redirects should be established and used when there's a genuine point of confusion (such as "Biker Scout" redirecting to "Imperial Scouttrooper", for example), not to cover laziness. I don't want to squelch the content creation of contributors, but they have the tools available to create links without having a mess of redirects.


 * Besides, in this case, Wookieepedia doesn't have a "DIREX" page either. They don't even have a redirect. It's "DIREX Board". -- Hawke / Rtufo 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not laziness its usability. Redirects are used for more than just relieving confusion -- refer to:Wikipedia:Redirect.  Redirects make it easier for people to find what they're looking for.  If somebody from the MUSH comes here, looking for an explanation of Direx, you're forcing them to find it your way, rather than giving them the option to find it the way I would.


 * Whether or not you intended to "squelch the content creation of contributors", you did. A page I deliberately created got deleted, and it was done without my ever getting a chance to make a case for keeping it.


 * What Wookieepedia does or does not do is something to be considered, but shouldn't be the deciding factor for anything. Just because they name their page something, that doesn't mean we have to as well.


 * I don't mean to single you out, Danik has done the same thing. I just didn't notice it in the changelog at the time. -- Xerxes 11:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer redirects myself. For instance for the Galactic Empire page, Imperial, Imperials, Empire redirect to that. Danik redirects to Danik Kreldin, etc. I find it more easy to use. --Danik Kreldin 08:38, 7 April 2006 (PDT)


 * For the sake of discourse, I'll use your statement of "you're forcing them to find it your way, rather than ... the way I would." How is that your way is better than, or more efficient than, or more effective than my way? Who's the judge of this? Your own statement can be turned around and applied to your actions, and your establishment of redirect pages would be construed as "forcing them" to find it "your way".


 * The key point to my arguement is that the page is/was an orphaned page &mdash; a page that has nothing linking to it. There is already a "DIREX Board" page (as a redirect) in existance, and this sort of redundancy just needs a clean-up. Again, there was nothing linking to it. If there were a greater number of pages linking to it, or, better yet, a number of redlinks (open links) "requesting" it, then perhaps a redirect page is warranted. At this point, with the relatively small scale of the MUSH's content, it's easier to go back, edit the original content to point at the appropriate page (DIREX Board (CSA)), or a single redirect (DIREX Board), than it is to establish and maintain numerous redirects in the anticipation of a contributor perhaps using it. I'd rather the contributor "do their homework" and locate the appropriate page title to link to than establish a whole slew of redirects (hence the term "laziness"). It doesn't take much effort, and really reduces confusion in the long run.


 * The fact that it was a CSA page, or one created by you, is inconsequential, and had no bearing on my action. It's not a contextual page... it was a technical page.


 * And this very discussion here brings up another example... Up there, in your posting, there's a redlink. Why's it there? Because you're under the assumption that "Danik" is "Danik", whereas "Danik" is actually "Danik Kreldin". Are you lazy? No. Are you blatantly ignorant? No. Nothing that harsh. But you are incorrect, and that link needs to be fixed. With this being a one-time occurance, you/we just go back and fix it to point to Danik as it should. Does it really need a redirect made just because you didn't know that it's supposed to be Danik ? I hope this illustrates my point. -- Hawke / Rtufo 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The ellipsis makes all the difference. I said ... rather than giving them the option to find it the way I would..  I'm not claiming that redirects are a better way of finding articles.  I am saying that it is a valid way to do so.  Having the redirect gives people the option to find things by browsing through categories, other pages AND by entering the URL directly (previous known as my way).  It shouldn't be a matter of choosing one way or the other, but considering both as valid and supporting both.  If you delete those redirect entry points, you remove that method of finding articles and forcing users to use other means.


 * I did not intend to imply that my page was singled out or that anything was deleted out of malice. I simply objected to the fact that it was done so unilaterally, without any chance for the community to weigh in.  I created this page (SW1ki:Articles for deletion).  I think we should make it part of our deletion policy.


 * I have to disagree with your statement: Are you lazy? No. Yes, in this instance I was lazy.  I didn't bother to check what I posted, and didn't catch a mistake.  I've got no problem with people fixing other people's links.  I agree with you.  If the link is broken, change it to point to the actual page, don't create a redirect.  I just want to be able to create a redirect that helps people find pages, to actually get to the right article using their browser, and not have it deleted.  The purpose of the redirect was to make it easier to find the article, not easier to link to the article. -- Xerxes 16:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response, and the sentiment behind it, are taken as an appreciated recommendation. In terms of redirect pages, and different means of accessing articles, your recommendation will make me consider the existence of said pages. With that said, though, I will not consider pages-in-error (redirect pages that erroneously point at the wrong item, or are typos themselves, etc.) to be under this recommendation, and will vape them. The page that started this discussion is/was not a page-in-error, so if you feel that the page should be replaced, then by all means, do so. -- Hawke / Rtufo 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)