Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chatroom Regulars"
From LGPedia
OwenIsCool (Talk | contribs) (here's a solution) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The usage of the term Regs in place of Regulars needs to go. Regs to me means rules...a merger proposal involves taking the best of both and combining. While there isnt much on the Chatoom regulars that isnt on the Regs page it needs to be examined the problem of broken links needs to be addressed etc.--[[User:LordGreystoke422|LordGreystoke422]] 21:27, 28 January 2007 (CST) | The usage of the term Regs in place of Regulars needs to go. Regs to me means rules...a merger proposal involves taking the best of both and combining. While there isnt much on the Chatoom regulars that isnt on the Regs page it needs to be examined the problem of broken links needs to be addressed etc.--[[User:LordGreystoke422|LordGreystoke422]] 21:27, 28 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think a big part of the issue here is that one of them is a category page, and the other is an article page. Even if we deleted the category page, it would still be on a lot of other people's userpages. You know, the little thing on the bottom that says "Chatroom regulars" like I just put on the bottom of this page. Obviously though, it doesn't make sense to have that duplicate content. What I've seen on Wikipedia is | ||
| + | :#keep both, don't delete any (mainly to avoid confusion, you'll see) | ||
| + | :#remove the content from the [[:Category:Chatroom regulars]] page, (keeping the content on the [[Chatroom regs]] page) | ||
| + | :#replace that content with a blurb saying ''"These people listed here are Chatroom regulars. For the full article on Chatroom regulars, go to [[Chatroom regs]]."'' This lets you have a Category page, while still giving you the flexibility to have a real article page that you can edit any way you want. Category pages don't make good article pages. | ||
| + | :#Move [[Chatroom regs]] to [[Chatroom regulars]] using the "Move" tab, to preserve the page history. That way the article and category names will be consistent, and we'll also avoid any ambiguities in the abbreviation "regs". (I thought the same when I first saw it, LG422) | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | :Sound feasible? Since the unsigned comment also said that [[:Category:Chatroom regulars]] has less info, looks like there should be no problem removing that text.<br> | ||
| + | :[[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 22:42, 28 January 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 04:42, 29 January 2007
Delete Chatroom regulars, keep chatroom regs. Regs has much more done to it
The usage of the term Regs in place of Regulars needs to go. Regs to me means rules...a merger proposal involves taking the best of both and combining. While there isnt much on the Chatoom regulars that isnt on the Regs page it needs to be examined the problem of broken links needs to be addressed etc.--LordGreystoke422 21:27, 28 January 2007 (CST)
- I think a big part of the issue here is that one of them is a category page, and the other is an article page. Even if we deleted the category page, it would still be on a lot of other people's userpages. You know, the little thing on the bottom that says "Chatroom regulars" like I just put on the bottom of this page. Obviously though, it doesn't make sense to have that duplicate content. What I've seen on Wikipedia is
- keep both, don't delete any (mainly to avoid confusion, you'll see)
- remove the content from the Category:Chatroom regulars page, (keeping the content on the Chatroom regs page)
- replace that content with a blurb saying "These people listed here are Chatroom regulars. For the full article on Chatroom regulars, go to Chatroom regs." This lets you have a Category page, while still giving you the flexibility to have a real article page that you can edit any way you want. Category pages don't make good article pages.
- Move Chatroom regs to Chatroom regulars using the "Move" tab, to preserve the page history. That way the article and category names will be consistent, and we'll also avoid any ambiguities in the abbreviation "regs". (I thought the same when I first saw it, LG422)
- Sound feasible? Since the unsigned comment also said that Category:Chatroom regulars has less info, looks like there should be no problem removing that text.
- OwenIsCool 22:42, 28 January 2007 (CST)
