Difference between revisions of "User:Joannac/Todo"

From Geohashing
imported>UnwiseOwl
m (Noted for joee.)
imported>Benjw
(Not sure about deleting: simple rule - if it could be helpful, leave it)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
*[[Copenhagen]], and other things like Canberra and Cambridge that people like using instead of typing the whole grat name.
 
*[[Copenhagen]], and other things like Canberra and Cambridge that people like using instead of typing the whole grat name.
 
*[[Double hash]], Triple hash etc - can whoever uses them just use [[Multihash]]?
 
*[[Double hash]], Triple hash etc - can whoever uses them just use [[Multihash]]?
 +
::Yes, they can use "Multihash" if they know that a double hash is a special case of a multihash.  In creating these redirects (and ones like "Cambridge") I was trying to follow what I thought was a wiki rule -- if something is known by various names, then redirecting from those alternate names is a Helpful Thing To Do.  Sure, anyone knowledgable or dedicated enough is going to be able to find the "real" page anyway, but why shouldn't we make it easy for them?  Useless stuff should indeed be deleted, but not useful or helpful things.  -- [[User:Benjw|Benjw]] 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
*[[Dow]] -- ditto
 
*[[Dow]] -- ditto
  

Revision as of 15:37, 27 May 2009

Not sure about deleting

  • CURSE - nice curious "ooh i wonder what that is" link
I've added the Curse of the Geohash page to the fun stuff category, is there anything else that needs doing about it? I feel that keeping both versions of it is not needed. -- UnwiseOwl 08:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep these, they make perfect sense.
Yes, they can use "Multihash" if they know that a double hash is a special case of a multihash. In creating these redirects (and ones like "Cambridge") I was trying to follow what I thought was a wiki rule -- if something is known by various names, then redirecting from those alternate names is a Helpful Thing To Do. Sure, anyone knowledgable or dedicated enough is going to be able to find the "real" page anyway, but why shouldn't we make it easy for them? Useless stuff should indeed be deleted, but not useful or helpful things. -- Benjw 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming

obsolete, need to be cleared out