ViewsWatchers |
Beth You wrote:
Here's how to solve that particular problem See Disambiguation below. If you click on Theodore Coleman (1) you'll find that it was created 29 January 2008 by Dmerrill3, who subsequently decided this wasn't for him, and killed his tree. That left a card for Theodore Coleman (1) with nothing in it. You could, I suppose, appropirate it for your own, since its an abandoned card. Coleman (3) etc, are emptty as no one has ever tried to create a card using those numbers. The system doesn't actually care what number you pick, as long as its not already occupied. you cuold, for example, make all of your new cards number "1000", for example. I've seen a couple people doing that. Q 18:48, 30 May 2008 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] Disambiguation [3 June 2009]
Well doggone it Q; I don't see why the numbers are not reused. I guess it is something to do with preserving the history on the site; but seems like a waste and somewhat unintentionally deceptive. Anyway how did you find these other pages? --Beth 19:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT) Hi Beth. These person cards that have had their electrons liberated but where the names still exist in the "catalogue", are everywhere. Virtually everytime I do a Disambiguation, it reveals such abandoned cards.----Perhaps I should have explained how to do this---its one of those really trvial things that is totally innobvious Just create a name for a person card---like [[Person:Thomas Coleman (1)]], duplicate it a bunch of times, and then go back in and change the index numbers so that you get a sequence. I've done this a number of times when I have a fairly common name and want to be sure I'm not overlooking something---In some cases I've had over a hundred cards. To do a very large disambiguation is cumbersome, but fortunately there are mechanical tricks you can work with things like Excell and Word that simplify the process. I suspect that one day, when people start having to deal with index numbers like 945231, they'll be scavenging up this old "empties" just so they won't have to remember a long index number. Q 20:53, 30 May 2008 (EDT) Hi Q, your instructions are not specific enough for me at least tonight. Where am supposed to create this person card and why don't these numbers show up in the search index if they still exist even if they have been deleted? --Beth 21:28, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
As to the numbers not showing up, it depends on which search function you use, I suspect. This is one where the "Browse All" under Admin works best. (Weird place for it, huh?). If you do your search there, it will show Theodore Coleman (1), Theodore Coleman (2), and no others in the sequence. Don't know why it doesn't show in the other searches. Pehaps because they insist on having a "real" name card, not just a figment of someone's imagination. But the Browse all seems to work on a different set of principles, and picks them all up. Pretty sure fixing the search function is high on Dallan's list. Q 21:44, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
See Disambiguation:Theodore Coleman There are no active Theodore Colemans through index number 199. Suspect yours is the only one. The search function will only pick up cards that actually exist. Theodore (1) once existed but ceased to exist when his tree was removed. His presence is now marked only as an "empty card" (doesn't really exist at all, but is created temporarily on the fly when you create a link for him---it doesn't exist until you actually click the link, and even then will only become "real" if you edit it. Q 08:22, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
[add comment] [edit] Construction Icon [2 June 2009]Hi Beth. Took the check mark off the "primary" box for the construction icon, and inserted the image directly onto the page. That way just the icon appears, not the other stuff that's unneeded. Feel free to change it back if you prefer the other. Q 19:10, 2 June 2009 (EDT) Thanks Bill, i answered on your page. Just great; I am happy you were watching my page so I didn't have to spend more time figuring out how to get the correct display. I eliminated the image so the icon is not now dancing around in both places. --Beth 21:34, 2 June 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit] link [3 June 2009]Link does not work. Q 20:48, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
|