Talk:Casket of Tears

See Talk:October. OwenIsCool 13:43, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not really seeing the connection between this redirect and the October redirect. Since LonesomeOctober was already very well-known (remember, his P.Monkey press conference was one of the biggest videos of early September... one of the ways I stumbled on lonelygirl) when this Tachyon video was made. I think the Tachyon video is definitely a reference to LonesomeOctober, I mean, the OpAphid people would have to be pretty oblivious to not know about LO and it'd be a hell of a remarkable situation if they were 1) super tuned into LG, but oblivious to maybe its most popular fan vid and 2) happened to use those exact tags right next to each other.

I know how to check "What links here." If you look through my edits they were all about wanted pages and I only created redirects a couple of times, when it was just a screw-up in a page you can see that I just fixed the link in the page. But with Casket of Tears, it was only and explicitly talking about Cu Roi's "Casket" video, and so I don't see how Talk:October applies. The page redirected to the correct place. And this is common practice in wikis, it's why redirects exist. This is still a useful redirect; after all, if someone punches "Casket of Tears" into the search and hits "go", it takes them exactly where they should be, which is the Cu Roi page. It doesn't seem to be standard practice on this wiki to create a separate page for both the video and the video creator. And in that case, it seems pretty logical to make the name of that video redirect to the page of the video creator. I mean, I really think this is just standard.

Besides, I was just cleaning up wanted pages because it said to on the Community Portal... Whatev...

• Phunck! 18:04, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Phuncknasty, you're right that the Lonesome and October redirects are not related to this one. I wasn't thinking too much about it when I linked this page to the October talk. I linked it mostly because the other page had the explanation on creating Wanted pages and didn't mean to imply that I disagreed with this one for the exact same reason.

My reason for deletion is stated on the article page in the delete template. I was working under the assumption that people would be coming to the Cu Roi article via that Clue 2 page, where there used to be a link to Casket of Tears. Since it's a good practice to link to the article itself rather than a redirect page, I edited Clue 2 with a link to Cu Roi instead of Casket. I honestly didn't expect people to come here specifically looking for a Casket of Tears or Cu Roi article and punching it into the search box, which is why I didn't think the redirect would be useful. I don't think it does any harm though. I thought the only reason you created it was because it was a Wanted page and I just thought that in that instance, removing the broken link and adding one to Cu Roi would have been better. I didn't nominate it because I'm fundamentally opposed to redirects or anything. In fact, if it doesn't bother anyone else I think we should just leave it as is.

As for the "lonesome" and "october" pages, although its entirely possible (and even likely) that they were intentionally referring to LonesomeOctober, I think linking to it from that Tachyon video might give people the (wrong) impression that LonesomeOctober was in any way connected when it's actually a completely independent series. Even if it was in reference to LO, the tags were probably placed there to get more views, or to get the video on the radar of people watching LG and LO videos (which worked in your case). (By the way, Tachyon's video was uploaded on October 23rd, not in early September like you say. It literally is an update for midOctober). Like I said before, I don't know what's the best way to deal with those tags, but I think that simply linking to LO's article is just going to create confusion in the minds of viewers, especially newer ones. Perhaps just taking the mark-up off the tags would be best, I really don't know and I'm hoping to get opinions from other people.

On a more personal note, Phuncknasty, I sense some resentment in your reply. You might know to check "What links here", but I'm trying to write a note that everyone will understand. There are many people who read the LGPedia that aren't familiar with wikis and it's useful for them when things like that are brought up. It doesn't hurt anybody to have that explanation there, and it certainly shouldn't offend you that it put it there, but thanks for letting me know that you knew already. I think it's great that you contribute to LGPedia; just because I disagree with a couple of these redirects doesn't mean I don't want you to create needed pages. You don't need to "point people to your defense"; this isn't an attack on you or your work, it really is just a (completely friendly) disagreement.

OwenIsCool 19:43, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Nah, I didn't take it personal. I have spent most of my wikilife on wikipedia... and it's just common practice there to "point people" to relevant discussions from one talk page to another. I wasn't trying to be obnoxious. I guess it's probably not so necessary on a smaller wiki... it just takes time to get used to the culture of other wikis.

And, btw, I said LO's video was early September, not Tachy's...

More saliently, I guess I don't understand what function linking all the tags serves.

• Phunck!

Without going into the other issues raised here, I don't see a real reason to delete redirects that cause no confusion and direct to the correct page. Unless there's a good reason to do that, I say we remove the deletion tag and leave this be. This is by no means the first redirect with nothing pointing to it.--JayHenry 22:58, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah, there is little reason to delete a page that isn't hurting anything, isn't redundant, and is potentially useful. This and other redirects like it serve a purpose, minor though it may be. In fact, it is a common practice to have redirect pages with nothing linking to them; ALL redirect pages ought to have nothing linked to them. --Brucker 23:32, 27 February 2007 (CST)