Talk:Paunch - Revision history

Defender1031: /* Double redirect? */ clarify

Defender1031 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:59:34 GMT

Double redirect?: clarify

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 22 September 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	:::::What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.201\|132.183.138.201]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:::::What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.201\|132.183.138.201]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-	::::::If used to be that if you went to A, you'd get to B which just contained a "redirected from A" and the redirect arrow and link. Now it'll go all the way to the end of a redirect chain. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)	+	::::::If used to be that if you went to A, you'd get to B which just contained a "redirected from A" and the redirect arrow and link to C. Now it'll go all the way to the end of a redirect chain. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Defender1031: /* Double redirect? */ reply

Defender1031 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:59:13 GMT

Double redirect?: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 22 September 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	:::::What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.201\|132.183.138.201]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:::::What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.201\|132.183.138.201]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	::::::If used to be that if you went to A, you'd get to B which just contained a "redirected from A" and the redirect arrow and link. Now it'll go all the way to the end of a redirect chain. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

132.183.138.201: /* Double redirect? */

132.183.138.201 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:06 GMT

Double redirect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 22 September 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::::What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.201\|132.183.138.201]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Defender1031: /* Double redirect? */ a bit more

Defender1031 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:00 GMT

Double redirect?: a bit more

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 22 September 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)	+	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Defender1031: /* Double redirect? */ basically, we've got it, we should use it where it makes sense.

Defender1031 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:30:00 GMT

Double redirect?: basically, we've got it, we should use it where it makes sense.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 22 September 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	::::Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay: /* Double redirect? */ There's another advantage, too

Jay — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:36:18 GMT

Double redirect?: There's another advantage, too

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:36, 22 September 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

YK: /* Double redirect? */ Thanks.

YK — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:06:49 GMT

Double redirect?: Thanks.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:06, 22 September 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Ok, so I went to fix the "[[Paunch Berry]] -> [[Paunchberry]] -> [[Paunch]]" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting why it was. Since both pages redirect to [[Paunch]] (and going by [[Special:DoubleRedirects\|this]], we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -{{User:YK/sig}} 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		Ok, so I went to fix the "[[Paunch Berry]] -> [[Paunchberry]] -> [[Paunch]]" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting why it was. Since both pages redirect to [[Paunch]] (and going by [[Special:DoubleRedirects\|this]], we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -{{User:YK/sig}} 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
	:Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		:Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	::Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -{{User:YK/sig}} 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

DorianGray: /* Double redirect? */ Reply

DorianGray — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:04:35 GMT

Double redirect?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 22 September 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Ok, so I went to fix the "[[Paunch Berry]] -> [[Paunchberry]] -> [[Paunch]]" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting why it was. Since both pages redirect to [[Paunch]] (and going by [[Special:DoubleRedirects\|this]], we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -{{User:YK/sig}} 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)		Ok, so I went to fix the "[[Paunch Berry]] -> [[Paunchberry]] -> [[Paunch]]" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting why it was. Since both pages redirect to [[Paunch]] (and going by [[Special:DoubleRedirects\|this]], we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -{{User:YK/sig}} 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
		+	:Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]] 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

YK: /**/Double redirect?

YK — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:56:18 GMT

: Double redirect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:56, 22 September 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::::::This page also reminds me of [[Apothecary]]. That's enough precedent to keep this unique word article. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)		::::::This page also reminds me of [[Apothecary]]. That's enough precedent to keep this unique word article. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I also agree '''keep''', because of reasons stated here and in [[Talk:Pining]]. {{User:Theycallmefree/sig}} 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)		:::::::I also agree '''keep''', because of reasons stated here and in [[Talk:Pining]]. {{User:Theycallmefree/sig}} 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Double redirect? ==
		+
		+	Ok, so I went to fix the "[[Paunch Berry]] -> [[Paunchberry]] -> [[Paunch]]" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting why it was. Since both pages redirect to [[Paunch]] (and going by [[Special:DoubleRedirects\|this]], we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -{{User:YK/sig}} 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer: Rm tag per consensus to keep.

Heimstern Läufer — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:57:31 GMT

Rm tag per consensus to keep.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, 15 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{ttbd}}~~	+
	== Diddly dee? ==		== Diddly dee? ==