Should I retroactively re-number the Unused Text articles?

[Shademp]

The time is approaching when the next entry will finally be posted. But my mind is not at ease. To refresh, here is what the article index looks like.

The question I pose both to myself and the audience is this: Should I change the numbering (which will require two new pages to be published) from this...

• Part 5: Rescuing Aeris, Story Time at the Inn – (1) Wall Market to Shinra HQ Library
• Part 5: Rescuing Aeris, Story Time at the Inn – (2) Shinra HQ Library to Kalm
• Part 6: Chocobo Farm to Corel Prison – (1) Chocobo Farm to Cargo Ship
• Part 6: Chocobo Farm to Corel Prison – (2) Costa del Sol to Corel Prison
• Part 7: Gongaga to Wutai
• Part 8: Keystone Quest to End of Disc 1

...to this?

• Part 5: Wall Market to Shinra HQ Library
• Part 6: Shinra HQ Library to Kalm
• Part 7: Chocobo Farm to Cargo Ship
• Part 8: Costa del Sol to Corel Prison
• Part 9: Gongaga to Wutai
• Part 10: Keystone Quest to End of Disc 1

The purpose would be to make at least a small attempt of evening out the length of each numbered article (even though some might say that even the first page in Part 5 is too long on its own). Another pro would be that the number of videos could be evened out better across the article intros.


There are some cons though. First off, long-time followers will be confused. Over a hundred image attachments that I just made will be erroneous. Many of the images are even named according to the article number, so those will end up wrong as well. I don't think any glitches will actually occur from this, so perhaps the only one who suffers is my perfectionist nerve.


What do you guys and gals think? Would you really like to see this change done, do you not mind either way or do you advice me away from it?

 

[Cthulhu]

I think (but you should verify this) that the old URLs to the existing articles will remain and automatically redirect to the new ones, so search engine scores and bookmarks for those articles should remain. You probably should put the original title way back up in the article text, so that people that Google for (part of) the original title will still be able to find it.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I don't think any glitches will actually occur from this, so perhaps the only one who suffers is my perfectionist nerve.


What do you guys and gals think? Would you really like to see this change done, do you not mind either way or do you advice me away from it?

 

[Shademp]

Not sure how to interpret your response Tres.

I remember a few people complaining about Part 5 and Part 6 being too long. This is one of the big reasons behind me considering to renumber them. Often I even feel shame for how lengthy those articles became. Are there a lot of people here who would like to see those entries divided?

 

[Ⓐaron]

Look at the bolded parts. He's saying don't bother redoing them.

 

[Shademp]

I looked at the bolded parts but I wasn't sure of the interpretation until you told me.

So far it appears that I'm the only one who is really passionate about the issue, which leans me towards not "fixing" the article length by changing the numbering.

 

[Fangu]

Sleep on it. My 2 øre is, what is done is done. Keep in mind you want to keep the rest of the series shorter, but I don't think the work is worth the reward going back to change it.

 

[Ⓐaron]

My two cents: If it really bothers you having some of the parts be that long, just split them onto multiple pages for ease of reading, but it's probably too much work to renumber the entire series. Besides renumbering the old entries will probably confuse people.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough the first time, buddy. Yeah, I was saying don't bother redoing them, and I agree with everything Aaron and Frangu suggested. Splitting the longer ones into multiple pages for ease of reading now would be a simple fix, and going forward you can just be more mindful of length.

But as our Norwegian friend said, what's done is done. This is the product you produced, and it's worth neither the extra work of going back to change it nor the resultant confusion it may engineer -- and, for that matter, never be ashamed of any work you have done. Only work that you haven't done.

"Little House on the Prairie" taught me that.

 

[Shademp]

Well I can't argue against Little House on the Prairie. *guilty of enjoying that show when I was little* Thanks everyone.

It is decided then. The article numbering will remain as is and accordingly the next article in the series will be Part 9. A forum mod can go ahead and remove this thread. =)

 

[Cthulhu]

Personally, and speaking more generally, I'm not opposed on the idea of maintaining older articles / background information etc, if they're not "recent" information (like news) and would look better after some restructuring.

 

[Kermitu Kleric Katie]

"advice me away from it"? Tsk, tsk, bad Shademp, I thought you knew better than that. Flint would be ashamed.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

A typo at 3:00 in the morning? Say it ain't so.

Since Shademp's satisfied with the responses and decision he reached, I'll lock this now.