Talk:Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (→Title: redirected) |
imported>Joe Quick (respond to RJensen) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Would it make more sense to store this article at [[Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo]] and then fill in the metadata page "abc" field with "Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Treaty of" for alphabetization purposes? This would make wikilinking in other articles a whole lot easier. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 18:18, 23 November 2007 (CST) | Would it make more sense to store this article at [[Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo]] and then fill in the metadata page "abc" field with "Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Treaty of" for alphabetization purposes? This would make wikilinking in other articles a whole lot easier. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 18:18, 23 November 2007 (CST) | ||
::we have a redirect already in place so there are no linking problems. "Treaty of...." or "Battle of ..." is poor form, in my opinion.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:34, 23 November 2007 (CST) | ::we have a redirect already in place so there are no linking problems. "Treaty of...." or "Battle of ..." is poor form, in my opinion.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:34, 23 November 2007 (CST) | ||
:::Redirects ''do'' create more work for the server, but not that much really, so this isn't a big issue. I'm not clear on why you think that "Treaty of..." is poor form though. This is what the [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038276/Treaty-of-Guadalupe-Hidalgo Encyclopedia Britannica uses]. The form "..., Treaty of" is appropriate for an index, but CZ isn't an index and alphabetization in index-like parts of CZ is accomplished by the "abc" field of the metadata page. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:22, 26 November 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 00:22, 26 November 2007
Title
Would it make more sense to store this article at Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and then fill in the metadata page "abc" field with "Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Treaty of" for alphabetization purposes? This would make wikilinking in other articles a whole lot easier. --Joe Quick 18:18, 23 November 2007 (CST)
- we have a redirect already in place so there are no linking problems. "Treaty of...." or "Battle of ..." is poor form, in my opinion.Richard Jensen 22:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)
- Redirects do create more work for the server, but not that much really, so this isn't a big issue. I'm not clear on why you think that "Treaty of..." is poor form though. This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica uses. The form "..., Treaty of" is appropriate for an index, but CZ isn't an index and alphabetization in index-like parts of CZ is accomplished by the "abc" field of the metadata page. --Joe Quick 00:22, 26 November 2007 (CST)
- we have a redirect already in place so there are no linking problems. "Treaty of...." or "Battle of ..." is poor form, in my opinion.Richard Jensen 22:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Developed Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Developed Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Politics Developed Articles
- Politics Advanced Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Military Developed Articles
- Military Advanced Articles
- Military Nonstub Articles
- Military Internal Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- Military Underlinked Articles
- History tag
- Military tag