Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Helper"

Revision as of 00:10, 5 September 2006

Thanks for your contributions to the Wiki, Ramen. I'm going to let Jim decide and/or redirect the old article, if he wants to switch from an article to a category for this topic. (In the meantime, it creates a bit of confusion as to having two pages that duplicate the same information, as people won't know which to edit. It's better for a change like this to be transacted completely.)

I do think your last edit makes things a bit ambiguous, though, so I'm going to revert that. Each helper has a specific job, and it might be good to describe it on the same page. Stating that 'other helpers do other jobs, such a, b, and c' makes it seem that the others each do a, b, and c.

In general, an article about helpers consolidated all the information on one page, instead of forcing people to navigate to categoried sub-articles, to read up on specifics about each helper. We might not want to split up articles into separate pages, as it creates too many links for people to have to navigate, to find information, especially if they don't already know what each named Helper does.

I do agree though that the wording could be cleaned up a bit. --FeralKitty 01:26, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure on where to draw the line between having all the info on one page and breaking them out into separate pages... For now we don't know a whole lot of info so it has made a little more sense to have them all together... but I think eventually they may need their own pages. We already had Storkos on a separate page, so I guess it could make sense to have the others on their own pages too. --Jimmcq 01:35, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I think if there's a lot of information that needs to be added for each helper, then it makes good sense to split it off. But the downside is that people who are looking for information, now need to know which of six or seven specific pages to read. Just trying to avoid more complaints that information is hard to find, and there are too many links to navigate. Thanks for the REDIRECT! --FeralKitty 01:42, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

I Agree. --Jimmcq 01:46, 5 September 2006 (EDT)

Suggestion about using Section Links

A good example of a brief topic that didn't need its own article is the Water Meter. I made a section heading for it on Watering Can and linked to it with [[Watering Can#Water Meter]]. In the future, it might be better to initially use separate sections for small sets of related information, instead of creating separate articles that only consist of a few sentences. As a topic gets more extensive, we can use Talk to discuss splitting material. Of course, the original page should still contain brief descriptions (e.g. of each helper), so that readers can still get a general overview, without being forced to read other pages. --FeralKitty 03:10, 5 September 2006 (EDT)