WGPTrey

Welcome!

Hello, WGPTrey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Origins links

Hi, Trey. I saw a few of your edits. Keep in mind WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken -- if the edit won't actually change the textual content of the page or the (eventual) destination of a link, it's not a great use of the system's resources. It's still nice to see you here though. :-) -- JHunterJ 14:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm going to rephrase what you just said, to make sure I understand. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's ok to change the name of the show where it actually appears on the page, but not necessary (and not really helpful) to change the link unless the link is broken. I was changing everything (since I have to check each page anyway), but can happily stop doing so if it's not helpful. Thanks for the note! Trey Reilly 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Right; if the full name appears (and is incorrect -- some of them might be referring to the show under one of its former names, so they should use the former name), then correcting it is a go. If the page looks the same and acts the same after your edit (with the possible exception of skipping a redirect), then not so much. -- JHunterJ 14:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. That brings up another question, though - internally, we prefer references to previous shows to either use the new name or just call it Origins. (so the 1998 Origins would either be 1998 Origins, or 1998 Origins Game Fair. We don't want it called 1998 Origins International Game Expo, as we think that'll cause confusion). Is it ok to update references to previous shows to the truncated version of the name? WGPTrey 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that brings up a different potential problem, conflict of interest WP:COI, what you'd like it to be known as to avoid confusion with the current fair vs. what it was called then. The 1998 Origins International Game Expo wasn't the 1998 Origins Game Fair, and there are citations available for such (e.g., The Washington Times, August 27, 1998, p. C8). I don't think there'd be much confusion, but you'd probably be better off addressing the confusion with an in-text explanation where appropriate, a footnote if not. Footnoting example:

... at the 1998 Origins International Game Expo.<ref>The Origins International Game Expo is now known as the Origins Game Fair</ref>

which produces:

... at the 1998 Origins International Game Expo.

and if you later add <references/> or {{subst:footnotes}}, you'll get

-- JHunterJ 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is talking about Origins in general, we should use the current name. If an article is talking about a specific Origins, (say, 1998), we should use the name used at the time. It will match era citations, make research easier, and is simply more accurate. Linking to the article under its new name should be plenty good enough to help people understand that's it's the same event. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

JHunterJ - Wouldn't using the truncated version of the name (1998 Origins) be simpler? Shouldn't cause confusion or require explanatory footnotes, as calling it Origins (rather than either full formal name) is commonly accepted. WGPTrey 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the short common name is fine in any of these contexts. -- JHunterJ 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)