Talk:Hagen

move contenet?
should we move the content of this article to something like Hagen (Armor)? Just doesn't seem fair to make this particular one THE Hagen. Leave Hagen as a purely disambiguation page that points to 2 other pages. -PanSola 05:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That would probably be best, but I'm not going to stress about it. The high end armor crafters are probably more sought after pages on the wiki than the merchants in the mid point of the game.  --Rainith 06:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to move. With at least 95% chance somebody searching for "Hagen" (or linking to him from an other) article will have Hagen, the 15k weapon smith, in mind. As long as we add a disambig note to the Hagen article pointing towards Hagen the merchant, it is fine. -- 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTOC?
Karl has his own spiffy Table of Contents but Hagen does not? Was he the unloved cousin? Seeing as how short their pages are, neither deserves a TOC, I think. Also, they are both short and stocky dwarves; why do we call only one of them a "stub"? :P --Ishmaeel 22:01, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * IMHO for short articles the TOC is more confusing than helping, so I added NOTOC to many of them (not this one).
 * As for the "stub" tag, it is absolutely pointless IMO, but that is just my biased opinion. Pretty much every article on GuildWiki bears some kind of stub tag, even those that are very well elaborated, so it doesn't mean a thing to me. I ignore them and refuse to add them, except for articles that are in a very raw state. -- 22:57, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Agree with you on all points. Short article NOTOX'ing and unstubbing crusade anyone? --Ishmaeel 23:09, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * I could do it if I have the time, but don't count on me. Maby people should do this for every page they are otherwise editing.
 * Should I just remove the stub from all articles which seem to include the needed data and add the notoc to all short ones? --Gem 23:14, 3 March 2006 (CST)