Hey! Hopefully you get this in time, but I'm right in the middle of splitting Node, as you are. Let's talk before either of use goes any further. GPHemsley 06:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for letting me know that. However it looks like the split is pretty much complete, except for creating a disambig page at Node which really only requires replacing the {split} with {disambig}. --MatrixFrog 06:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'll take care of that then. I've got a couple of questions, though. I was considering Node (networking) and Node (programming); what are your opinions on that? Also, I think Node (graph theory) would be better off left as a redirect, as the page it redirected to explained what a node was just as well. GPHemsley 07:02, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, networking and programming sounds good. How about this... you build those 2 pages and revert to the redirect how it was (which seemed bad at the time but is probably a good idea) and I will begin to try fixing some of the links to what is now a disambig. Okay? --MatrixFrog 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've already started on the disambig page. Let me finish it up, and then you can fiddle with it and clean up. Then I'll see what we'll do about those other three pages. GPHemsley 07:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I finished up with it. Node is now officially a disambiguation page. I did, however, decide to leave node (computer science). I see you've begun editing the link-to's, including two regarding this. If you see no problem with it, I'll go ahead and change them for you. Then I'll go about changing node (IT) to node (networking), as well as reverting the change from node (graph theory). GPHemsley 07:17, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of work around here, so I just want to clarify something. Since node (graph theory) is a redirect, it would be silly to link to it directly, yes? Therefore whenever I see node used in the graph theory sense (ex. automorphism) i simply change "node" to "node" and make sure there is a link to graph theory nearby. Is this the correct way to go about it?

I'm not sure it matters either way. Both will accomplish the same thing, though linking directly to the redirect will at least give the reader a sense of what a node is, in case they can't tell that it's related to graph theory. Basically, I'd just do whatever's easiest. However, if no link to graph theory is nearby, you should most definitely make it a link to node (graph theory). GPHemsley 07:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Or even to node (graph theory) to save the server a few nanoseconds of having to redirect the user... --MatrixFrog 07:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or, even better, node, if that's the way you want to go. GPHemsley 07:39, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Aw, dangit. We've got a problem. Purkinje fibers uses node in a way that we don't have a page for. We'll need to come up with one. GPHemsley 07:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)