I'm not sure where to put suggestions for pages to delete - I've been moving info around all day and I'm leaving a trail of outdated empty entries behind me.
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!] - Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)] - Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
On ven, 2002-04-12 at 03:36, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
I'm not sure where to put suggestions for pages to delete - I've been moving info around all day and I'm leaving a trail of outdated empty entries behind me.
[[Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted]] is the usual place, though it's cleverly hidden.
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
Even if you fix all the links *within* Wikipedia, what about search engines that haven't re-indexed the site yet? What about people who bookmarked the old page and want to come back to it? What if somebody linked to an article from another site?
I think they'd be much happier being redirected to the new article than seeing "Describe the new page here."
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
I agree. One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
I agree. One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER... I won't bother trying to suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE... nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????
What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are a million useless redirects clogging up the database? And how about when you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely redirects? Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the project appear less professional and less useful than it might.
If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually use.
Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.
On ven, 2002-04-12 at 20:03, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
I agree. One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER... I won't bother trying to suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE... nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????
Maybe, maybe not. That *particular* one might well be a candidate for deletion, but I would definitely *not* delete [[Harry Potter/Quidditch]] or [[Harry Potter/broom]].
What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are a million useless redirects clogging up the database?
We all pitch in a dollar and buy Jimbo a bigger hard drive. :)
And how about when you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely redirects?
(You answer this in your next paragraph.)
Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the project appear less professional and less useful than it might.
Clearly we need better tools for handling redirects; a semi-automated point-all-redirects-to-the-new-page function would be helpful in this regard. But I'd rather see a redirect that I have to click on to follow the rest of the way than "Describe the new page here."
If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually use.
Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. Redirects should only turn up in searches if they point to a page that didn't come up in the search already, and probably should go last even then.
Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.
It would also be nice to have the option to search talk and user pages; every once in a while that could come in handy.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their browser!]
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Personally, I would really, REALLY, prefer that these kinds of pages be made redirects, *not* deleted outright.
I agree. One of the cardinal rules of good web practice is to try not to break old urls if people may still be using them somehow.
OK... so NOTHING ever gets deleted EVER...
Well, I wouldn't go quite _that_ far. :-)
I won't bother trying to suggest it then. BTW that first page title is the ACTUAL PAGE TITLE... nobody's going to search for that or link to that! Are they?????
No, but some of those pages are already in the search engines, and receiving traffic.
What happens when you run out of room for new entries because there are a million useless redirects clogging up the database?
Well, we'll never "run out of room" for new entries... disk space is cheap and getting cheaper.
And how about when you do a search and you get 100 entries, but 59 of them are merely redirects? Also how about the redirects that take you to a redirect which redirects you some place else? Surely it would be simpler and easier to be able to clear away some of the debris and to just have ONE... I think that all of these trails of redirects are making the project appear less professional and less useful than it might.
I think you have a very valid point. OUR search engine should not return links to redirects. If redirects have an impact on our search results at all, it should be to return pages that are the _object_ of the redirect. The redirects are ugly.
If you really want to keep all of this useless garbage then I'd suggest you need to find a way to keep the redirects OUT of search results because it's making them look like a mess, and much harder to actually use.
I agree.
Actually, in an ideal world the search routine would have options - so you could search just headers, or just bodies or both, and choose terms to include/exclude to help get the result you were looking for.
Yes, I agree with this, too.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org