User talk:Daniel Quinlan/redirects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just fyi, I've currently been resolving middle name issues as follows:

  • Prefer Firstname Lastname, with a redirect from Firstname M. Lastname and/or Firstname Middle Lastname,
  • Unless the name with the initial or the middle name is known to me to be the most common (like with John F. Kennedy), or appears significantly more often in a google search. In that case redirect Firstname Lastname to that version.

Does that sound reasonable? --Delirium 00:25, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

That's close to what I've been doing, but not quite the same. I generally try to put the actual article at the most common (or clearest) rendering and use redirects for less common renderings. If it's not clear what is most common or I don't know or care, then I've just been adding a redirect for the broken link (since the odds favor the broken link not being the most common one). I'm not saying your way is wrong, though. Daniel Quinlan 00:36, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically make redirects out of the pairs that mismatch solely on the case? I was looking at some of those, and I found some that were not talking about the same subject, but it was not obvious from the title. For these pages there should probably be disambiguation pages anyway. But we can't do that unless there is an article and/or someone really knows what they are about. In the meantime we could just make them redirects (which would fix the ones that are the same) and if someone wants to write an article, (s)he will just make the disambiguation page. that's what I think anyway, Dori 04:20, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

  • A few of the misspellings I tried to fix were in Talk or User namespaces. I tend to think we could limit the selection to the main namespace.
  • An easy way to fix links/articles with punctuation as the last character of the link would be neat.
  • Too bad "What links here" isn't available on the edit screen for new articles with the Cologne Blue skin. One needs to add a redirect first and check later if disambiguation is now needed ..
  • Maybe the charset for article names should be more limited ..

--User:Docu

Not to sound overwhelming, but when we've finished all these (I know, there's still a lot to do), I would like to add some rules for finding links on "foreign"ish names. For example, sometimes it's the last name and not the middle name that's missing (Mohammed Daoud vs. Mohammed Daoud Khan; Vicente Fox vs. Vicente Fox Quezada); sometimes it's that plus we don't have a consistent transliteration of "Mohammed" (or should I say "Mohammad" or "Muhammed"). DanKeshet 01:05, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

In addition to links to typos in Talk and User pages, I have also encountered number of links to Deletion Log. Since new articles will also mean new typos, we probably have to run the check again some time in the future so could script be set to ignore links in those pages? - Nilmerg 11:14, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've just added a note to the top of each of the sub-pages explaining what they are, as they are quite easy to come across from elsewhere in the wiki. I included a link back to this page as well. HappyDog 07:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming that links from talk or user pages aren't important. I'll strike them, but make a note of the links. Is that all right? Silverfish 14:57, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposed Project Change

Daniel has been gone fo almost two months...sigh :-( ...I'd like to suggest that we change one of Daniel's original rules: Don't delete a line or link. I propose instead something like:

When you have resolved a situation, by creating a redirect, adjusting a link, or adding an article; then remove the line or link from these lists.

My reasoning is that two fold. First, those who regularly try to update the list can see progress better. Second, if I create or move an article and see the redirect project in what links here, I assume I've got some more work to do. It is frustrating to come here and find the referring link already fixed. This check is agggravated by the length of some of these lists. If you actively clean up some of these problem links, please comment. Depending on results, I'll update the meta page describing the project. I normally wouldn't do it since I view user space as the property of the individual, but if Daniel's leave continues I'll rsk his ire when he (hopefully) returns. Thanks.... Lou I 17:47, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a value in retaining a list of the checked links. It helps if content is moved or added, and if we rerun the project at a later stage we can automatically remove unrelated links. I guess if the page history is used then we can get back the edits, but this is a fair bit more work and sometimes the history is lost or removed.
I don't think the fact that the what links here page links back to these project is a problem - it's easy to ignore them, and also helps lead people to the project (I think that's how I found it, but if not it's definitely brought me back a few times). So really the question is about making editing easier and clearer (and less depressing). I've been dividing pages into sections and indicating which sections were complete, and I think this helps a lot. If you want to do something worthwhile you might want to do this for all the pages I haven't done. --HappyDog 18:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Continue or not?

It seems that this particular project has been somewhat quiet. Althought Quinlan is still gone, is anyone willing to renew the lists? - Nilmerg 10:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Hornsby

Fixed

[edit] Tutelelake

The only pages linking to Tutelelake are your list of broken redirects number 6o and the lists of requested pages. The significance is, the Tutelelake link appears on the list of pages requested for more than two years. You must've created your list before someone else fixed their typo in whatever original page they wrote with the broken link. So I'm going to strike the one out of your list and let this ghost finally rest in peace. Blair P. Houghton 22:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If this runs again...

Then might be good to add it to Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 03:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodland/ Woodlands

This one is basically done, I think - they're essentially the same thing for disambig purposes. -- BD2412 talk 00:19, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

On Meta:Paper Wikipedia, I've advocated using the redirect categories to cull printworthy redirects from unprintworthy ones. I've put Category:Printworthy redirects or its opposite in several of the categorization templates, but I'd like these categories to become more widely used. Would you mind adding a categorization procedure (can be condensed from and/or refer to Wikipedia:Redirect) as an optional part of the procedure for fixing broken links?--Joel 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Help

I see something that I'd like to fix, but I'm afraid I'd mess it up and cause a war. So, I'm wondering if you can help me. I see that searching WP on FAH redirects immediately to Folding@home. The top of this latter article includes referencs to the gene fumarylacetoacetate hydrolase which currently does not have an article. I'd like to see a search on FAH bring users to a page where they then choose whether they want the article on Folding@home or the gene FAH. Does that make sense? If you can clean that up, or describe how I can do it myself, I'll then look in to adding information pertaining to the FAH gene. Regards, Keesiewonder 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)