Forum:Eliminating the Pipe Linking Rule

With a hiatus this week, and no severe issues going on, I thought now would be a good time to discuss this. Three years ago, it was decided that pipe links would be required and that redirects could not be linked to. I'm sorry, bit why do we have this rule? What benefits for it have? I read the original forum, and it seemed that the reasons were: Ultimately, using pipe links instead of redirects has no real benefits. I am not trying to advocate laziness in editing, but the entire editing experience would be much smoother if we did not have to focus so much on links. For example, when writing the long summaries for chapters, I have to write Law when I could just write Law and get the EXACT SAME RESULTS. And instead of being able to write Birdcage instead of Birdcage would make summary writing much more efficient without impacting the writing quality at all.
 * Helping people know what page they are headed to. A redirect should not be so obscure that this should be an issue. Maybe a technique or a weapon perhaps, but the reader will still know what it is from clicking on the link. In the case of names vs. Nicknames, such as Whitebeard and Blackbeard, most people know them better by those names. They are not going to gain anything by reading their real name while hovering over the link.
 * Helps prevent double/broken redirects. If we are as uptight with fixing those as we are with changing redirects to pipe links, this shouldn't be a problem. Heck, it'd probably be easier.

Other than the people who voted for this rule in the original poll (most of whom are inactive now), I've only seen one person vehemently support this rule, and it's the guy who caused the first forum. Everyone else I've talked to has not cared for this rule, yet it is enforced anyways. And I have nothing against pipe links, people should use them if they want to, but why should we be warned against using a linking system that works just fine? I'm not trying to be whiny here, I'm trying to get a questionable rule out of a really cluttered rulebook. And for those of you who'll blow this off as trivial, I ask you this: if this rule is so trivial, why do we have it, and why is it enforced? Why can't we just leave unbroken source code alone? 19:24, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Opposing. Links should be to the actual title of the page, not a redirect. 19:55, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

It's easy if you use the Visual editor. I use classic rich text so I can use both visual and source. 20:09, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

@Kage, Why? What benefits does it bring?

@Jopie, Visual Editor often brings problems, so most people use source all the time

20:34, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning to make this forum but never got around to it since it would cause a lot of lag for me. The issues with this rule is it causes extra lag due to unnecessary extra text (especially in source mode) which is an issue with Wikia in general. This is seen on various pages like Luffy's history section or any arc article. Plus that original forum was only supposed to be about 's in links and not pipe links so people who voted originally got confused. What I mean by 's is Ace's instead of Ace's. SeaTerror (talk) 21:02, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Forum:Redirects and Other Link Issues was the original forum, in case anyone is interested in reading it.

ST, wouldn't navigating to a page through a redirect also cause you lag? And I also seriously doubt your claim that more code = more lag. And possible lag would be imperceptible.

Anyways, back to the real topic. I've long hated the outcome of that forum, and it remains one of the things I most regret happened on the wiki. I obviously would still like to see it reversed. However, I believe the thing more damaging than the links themselves is the potential outcome of this forum.

The thing I would hate to see the most is any kind of edit that exists just to change a link format.

That is just such a waste of time and editing effort and time. Sadly, I also know that a rule allowing either format would just result in edit wars, as there are editors on both sides of this link issue that would be far too passionate about the issue. I don't want to see people waste their time, and I do not want to have to waste my time watching and banning people for stuff merely about which of two equally valid link styles are used.

So what do I think we should do about all these problems? The only solution I can think of is allow both types of links, but prefer the versions that do not use redirects. That way we can be more relaxed about the links, but prevent stupid edit wars. (I definitely do not want to see any kind of "original version" rule here, like we used to have for some things like spellings, etc) Allowing both with no preference will lead to people just changing things back and forth, as we really shouldn't allow that.

Think not about which format is better, but what will happen as a result of the decision made here. 22:05, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

The current linking system is fine as is. There is no need to change it. MasterDeva (talk) 23:30, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

The only way a "both allowed" system would work is if it was made against the rules to change older links after an edit is already done. Redirects also don't cause lag. Maybe on a heavier text article. Reducing any amount of text is the best way to combat Wikia's issue with large text/code articles. SeaTerror (talk) 00:00, June 11, 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly are these issues, ST? I've been on wikia for many years, and I've never heard anything about "Wikia's issue with large text/code articles" that pertains to this forum. The only thing I've heard about is Forum:Template Configuration Changes Coming, which deals only with templates, and has nothing to do with links, or this issue in any way. I would appreciate more info on this issue to help get this moving along towards a proper solution. 00:38, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't even remember what's the guideline here about that, but I do believe is better to link the actual page instead of using a redirect. It keeps all the links organized and correct, if people would use several different redirects to link page, it would be pain if such redirects were deleted or if the page would be moved. I also think that there are some cases that you have to use redirects instead: I'm talking about merged articles. For example, if I want to link Mozu I should use the redirect. That's because if I do link her, I want to link the article talking about her, if we decided to merge it in Mozu and Kiwi it doesn't matter, the redirect is used as anchor for the article talking about her. This way, we only have to edit the redirect in case the target articles is moved/changed, basically the redirect act as some sort of template for the page link. If we decide to split the pages, then Mozu becomes a normal page. Otherwise if changes are made to the merged article, we would have to trace backwards all the links, fiugre out which sister they wanted to link and correct them. Obviously this example is quite simple, but pages with a lot of merged articles (like animals for examples) are more complicated.

I think those kinds of redirects are listed in Category:Authorized Redirects, Levi. 00:24, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with pipe links. But there's not really anything wrong with redirects either, and Levi just pointed out a reason they actually work. The only possible issue would be broken/double redirects, but as stated before those can easily be fixed. The point is, is there anything wrong with redirects and should people be prevented from using them? Redirects and pipe links have the same effect on getting to pages nearly all the time, with the only section being the message under the title in the case of a redirect. And as for possible conflicts that could arise between hard-on pipe linkers/redirectors, we only really need one rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 02:06, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

@Awaikage: that's good. @Kaido: ok, but you are basically saying that people should be able to use redirects out of laziness.

Then you've never edited Luffy's history section or an arc page, Just. It should be obvious that those articles shouldn't take that long to load. It has always been that way even when I had a better computer. The amount of text causes those articles to load slower so allowing redirects would possibly help lower that lag since there would be less text in the code in general. SeaTerror (talk) 08:41, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

It's not really lazy, though. There are no added benefits to including their last names/Devil fruit name in the link. For people like me, who wrote summaries and update history sections a lot, this makes doing those a lot more efficient, and as long as it's not sloppy, efficient editing is good. By the way, I don't advocate using wrong spelling redirects, like Jimbei or String-String Fruit. Just people's correct names and Devil Fruit techniques, etc, because as stated before having the whole thing does not really do anything. 10:20, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

@ST: that's just not gonna happen. The surplus-text from the links is not-relevant, come on,what makes the page "heavy" to load is the sheer amount of paragraph used, templates and images. Probably summarizing better the histroy would help instead.

"that's just not gonna happen." Prove it then. There's no evidence that cutting down on extra needless code wouldn't reduce that lag. Also it isn't lazy to use redirects. Redirects are perfectly fine to use. If they weren't the idea of redirects wouldn't even exist. SeaTerror (talk) 19:55, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Everyone else seems to know what they're talking about, but it's also almost like everybody is talking about different things so I got confused and went to read the previous forum linked above, but I'm still pretty lost. So is there some kind of rule that prevents us from using  Luffy (redirect link) instead of Luffy (pipe link)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's what we're arguing over, I've been using redirect links forever and nobody seemed to care. Sure, pipe links look slightly nicer on pages because you can see the page they link to when you hover over them, but... that's it. Other than that, I originally thought "redirect links" were things that took people to the redirect page itself, but no, they lead you straight to the article. They're fine!! I feel like in the end it's all just a matter of preference. Someone please tell me if there's something I'm missing here. 23:59, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

In the manual of style it states "Links like devil fruit, Whitebeard and Luffy should be used, not links with redirects like devil fruit, Whitebeard and Luffy." I also originally ignored this rule, until some people caught me and put me through the wringer. So I'm trying to make it so that we aren't required to use pipe linking, since it has no real purpose/benefits whatsoever. 13:48, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Levi already explained the purpose/benefits: "It keeps all the links organized and correct, if people would use several different redirects to link page, it would be pain if such redirects were deleted or if the page would be moved." 14:20, June 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * "Prove it then. There's no evidence that cutting down on extra needles code wouldn't reduce that lag." - Yes, there is, you wouldn't even suggest that if you understand what are you talking about. Take for example Monkey_D._Luffy/History: it has 216153 characters, everything included, by removing all the piped links (so it's an overestimation), the article was cut down to 214816 characters. That's just a 0,6% of improvement only in the sheer amount of characters. Even if you tenfold that, you will go as far as 6%. But page loads is not only influenced by the page size, but also by the wiki scripts, images, templates. That big part won't be affected in any way by this change.
 * "Redirects are perfectly fine to use." - I'm contesting using a particular kind of redirects, not all. For example, I'm sure that if someone use a redirect like Rufy everybody will surely correct it. This is just to say that you cannot talk about redirect in general and say "they are fine". Some aren't, the discussion is about which these are.

Nay, going against in general. (Just answered to participate)

(edit conflict) I'm not saying all redirects should be used; I don't support redirects with wrong spellings (i.e. Rufy) or mistranslations that we don't use (i.e. Jimbei, Gum-Gum Fruit). However, I do believe we should be allowed to use redirects with first names (i.e. Law instead of Trafalgar D. Water Law) or common technique shortenings (i.e. Gear Fourth instead of Gomu Gomu no Mi/Gear Fourth Techniques). These redirects have little to no chance of being deleted, and all fall into uniform, making the number of redirects small and everything is easier to keep track of.

You say it is a hassle to deal with potential double or broken redirects if a page is moved, yet a little work on the redirect and it will be as good as new. When Law's full name was revealed, you changed ALL the pipe links to Trafalgar D. Water Law. Isn't that harder than simply fixing a redirect? 14:55, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I feel like this should be our "strong preference", not a rule. 15:17, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Levi didn't explain anything. Claiming that redirects are wrong is not only ridiculous but complete BS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a redirect like Law or Luffy. Also Levi you also didn't prove that there would be less lag by removing them. You just stated an opinion without backing it up with straight facts. SeaTerror (talk) 19:57, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep pipe-linking. Sorry I had to be simple here because when it comes to a discussing something this complex, it's hard for my brain to process it. I know it's tricky but most people find it easier to handle

Joekido (talk) 21:59, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to back up your silly lag allegations, ST. 22:29, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

"Silly" SeaTerror (talk) 00:07, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I would call the assertion that a <0,6% decrease only in the sheer amount of characters will have observable impact on the loading times of an article. But I'm sure you have some solid evidence to back up your claims, huh? 00:36, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

There are other rules separate from redirects that prevent us from using incorrect spellings, and nobody is advocating for using incorrect spellings in redirect form. Can we please move on from that topic?

Now, where do people stand in terms of what we're actually talking about? Do we want to allow all forms of links all the time? Do we want to prefer one type, but allow the other? Or do we want total domination of one type? 17:42, June 27, 2015 (UTC)

I say we strongly prefer pipe links, but for there to be no actual rule. If people want to go around changing other people's redirect links to pipe links to make the wiki look nicer, that's fine too. 18:23, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Then people should be able to change pipe links to redirects too by that logic. SeaTerror (talk) 19:22, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

...you have a point... 19:45, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, changing links will just spam the wiki activity for no good reason. So here is what I propose, which I don't think anyone has expressed clear problems about: How does that sound? 19:55, July 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Stronger preference for pipe links
 * Name shortening redirects (Like Luffy and Gear Fourth) are okay, while misspelling or mistranslation redirects (like Rufy and Jimbei) are not.
 * Do not edit unbroken source code (to prevent activity spamming)

We don't need a stronger preference for either. I already said what needs to be done. Make it the rule that you can't change the links so leave them as it is when they are created. SeaTerror (talk) 20:19, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Not what ST said at all. As I said much earlier, it is a HUGE waste of time to have to search through page histories to find "the original link form". That is one thing I have said from the beginning I DO NOT WANT AT ALL. I do not want to force that kind of time-wasting on anyone. My main concern is that making a rule here could likely result in huge time and effort wasting efforts of many users for such a small issue.

Here's my proposal:


 * Allow both forms of link, but ultimately prefer Pipe Links.
 * However, we do not allow edits that exist only to change "unbroken source code".

We do NOT need to talk about misspellings as I said before, because why would we allow misspellings in regular text anyways?

So we allow both, but have an ultimate end goal for the links to prevent edit warring. But while we allow both, if some terrible editor wants to go around changing redirects to pipes, they can't just edit whore with that, they need to fix something else on the page as well. (Because while there is a bunch of stuff wrong with just fixing links, if they fix something else it makes it worth it).

How does that sound? 12:49, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 15:37, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

People should be allowed to fix the links, at least. 15:39, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

That's what JSD is saying. People can fix the links, provided the edit isn't just that and is fixing other stuff on the page. For example, http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Applenine_Island?diff=1265292&oldid=1265290 this edit.

15:45, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

There's still no reason at all to "prefer" pipe links. SeaTerror (talk) 19:04, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

I think we've found a happy medium here. Close? 18:23, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with JSD's proposal. 01:59, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for my question to be answered. SeaTerror (talk) 02:35, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

JSD, I don't understand why just adjusting wrong links may start an edit war. That change would be a (very little) improuvement for the wiki, yet still an improuvement. Why would someone undo it [thus starting the edit war]? --Meganoide (talk) 09:40, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Meganoide, it's not just about an edit war. Right after you looked at this forum you proceeded to spam the wiki activity by doing nothing more than fixing a few links, preventing us from finding other edits that may be of more significance, such as say vandalism. There is zero point in your edits only fixing unbroken source code. 13:30, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, it seems that you didn't answer me, but in spite you started accusing me of doing a thing that can be done. Curious. I'd like to specify that I checked the "last edits" list in order to prevent that thing, but probably you would not read that sentence. So I'll return to the topic, asking: why an edit war would start? --Meganoide (talk) 14:20, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

You're also in the wrong here, Kaido, telling Mega that "we've decided" when the forum is still ongoing... 16:16, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but we do have a consensus for JSDs proposal. 16:27, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

I continue to see the "active discussion" template. And I see only JOP agreement. And, in the end, I'm still waiting for an anwser: why my edits would start an edit war? They wouldn't. I should be allowed to continue. --Meganoide (talk) 16:37, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I'll try to answer. Edit wars will happen because some people will be uptight about keeping their redirect links the same way, just as you are about changing them. I'm not trying to say it's OK, which it's not. But even though people shouldn't undo your edits just to change the links, there is no point in the edits you are making either. Your edits today have swarmed the activity, regardless of you listing them as minor, and have achieved nothing in terms of making the pages better. That's why the proposal is to continue to allow fixes to pipe links, as long as you make a significant contribution to go along with it. 17:03, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

@ST: "Also Levi you also didn't prove that there would be less lag by removing them. You just stated an opinion without backing it up with straight facts." did you even read my comment? I counted how much characters you will save by doing what you suggested, how's that is not a straight fact. The truth is that you hypothesize something about a topic you clearly don't understand how it works shifting the burden of proof on other which you will reject anyway without any basis. No one would even thing that saving a few characters in links would lessen the lag in a page.

I still think is technically more correct to use true links, but I agree that won't be the end of the world if you use redirects, as long you won't use "stupid" redirects that may be removed in future. I don't understand why one would purposely change a link with a (short) redirect and I still think the only reason why a redirect is used is purely laziness in the case of abbreviated redirects (as I said before, I think there are some kind of redirects, like those for merged articles, that must be used). That said, links like Law are plain stupid. Either use the redirect or a "true" link with the pipe.

You stated there is no evidence that any lag would be reduced. That's what you didn't back up. Also using redirects is never laziness. There is also no such thing as a "true" link since both links go to the same article. SeaTerror (talk) 18:16, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

I backed it up showing how much irrelevant that change is compared to the total weight of an article. That's exactly what I meant: shifting the burden of proof to other while you were the one suggesting that with no proof in the first place. I said "true" links to make people understand which kind of links I was talking about. I didn't mean to say there are "true" links.

In terms of Meganoide stuff, Kaido pretty much addressed most of what I would respond with in his latest post. To clarify further, Meganoide: To edit ONLY to change link types is a waste of your time as editor (an editor as skilled as you could be doing so much more to help us), and a waste of time for people who check every edit. My proposed rule keeps good editors from wasting their time on links that are ultimately fine either way.

Edit wars were my concern only if this forum decides to allow for a free-for-all on link types. There are people that prefer pipe links, and there are people who prefer redirects, and with no wiki-wide preference or intervention, they would conflict. And keeping links the way they were originally made would be a waste of time for those who police link edits.

Lag is not an issue either way, why are we talking about it so much?

Also, if we go with my proposal, we should be cool with the occasional bot sweep of the wiki to change some common redirects over to pipe links. Again, not all the time, but enough to cut down on some. Maybe twice a year or so?. Not a huge issue since there aren't really even any editors capable of using automated bots here anyways.

Also, if you do respond to this thread again, please explicitly say if you support my proposal or not. Several of you have responded to the thread but not stated support or disagreement, so it is hard to declare a clear majority. 04:49, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Agree with fixing links only if you fix something else productive too. Also agree with the occasional use of a bot/bot account. Haha actually I was thinking of the bot part as well, since Kaido mentioned how minor edits fixing links flood the activity. 05:06, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

I added the name of the man who left the other post. Please don't accuse me of being a vandal, ahah! I disagree with JSD's proposal, of course. I don't think that my time will be wasted if I only change links, because I don't do a lot of things. In that case I would simply work less time, instead or doing something else! BTW, I won't do anything else just because my english is not perfect and so my edits would have to be checked, THUS slowing down other users' work. That's why I prefer to work on removing wrong contents instead of creating new ones. --Meganoide (talk) 11:41, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

I voice my support. 11:57, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

JSD, there's a thing I don't understand. You say that just adjusting redirects would start an edit war. Instead, if you improuve the page while adjusting redirects, everyone will accept it. Am I right? That's a complete nonsense.

People who don't like adjusting redirects could just partially undo "my" edits, starting the feared edit war. Talking in general, a rule that allows "bad changes" if they're related to "good changes" is absurde. People would simply undo the "bad" part.

So your rule actually would not divide the edits in "can be undone" and "can't be undone" but in "have to be tolerated by those who don't like redirects' changes" and "don't have to". So it is much easier to create a rule that says that those changes must be completely tolerated (or not, it depends on which idea wins). --Meganoide (talk) 14:16, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

I feel like more than the edit war part, we wanted people to at least make one correction along with fixing links so that the activity doesn't get flooded with JUST minor edits fixing links. I don't mind it, but it's really for the sake of people who check every edit, etc.

By adding corrections other than link fixes, it also prevents people who disagree with your preferred link type from simply undoing your edits (causing an edit war), because that would result in undoing not only the link fix, but also the correction in the article. I... think that made sense.

Now that I think of it though, at first I thought there would be people who prefer redirect links over pipe links because of the "lag" thing ST kept mentioning (since I have 0 knowledge on how websites and lag works), but from Levi's response, it seems like pipe links in fact do not contribute to page lag. With that being said, I think the new rule should be: You can use either link you prefer, but you can only fix existing redirect links into pipe links and not the other way around. 15:27, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

@JOP: do you mean you're a girl? I didn't know it, how could I? However I don't understand what's the "the other way around" thing. And you should know that while undoing an edit you can "save" the "good part" and actually undo only the change of the link. That's why I say that edit wars would start in any case. And that's why I think that JSD's idea is not good. --Meganoide (talk) 16:15, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And I meant "don't change existing pipe links into redirect links" when I said "not the other way around". 18:35, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

The problem with using redirects is that they can potentially lead to double-redirects when a page is moved, yet the corresponding redirect links are not rectified. Same goes if we delete a bad redirect link, it'd leave a ton of red links. 18:36, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

...are we talking about redirects or redirect links? Because I feel like double redirects are a whole different discussion. 18:40, July 5, 2015 (UTC) Get it now. 19:22, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

The links get fixed and that isn't an issue anyway since it rarely happens. I'm not supporting or rejecting until I get an answer to my preference question. SeaTerror (talk) 19:02, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to prefer pipe links: Reasons to prefer redirect links: 19:22, July 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see exactly which article you will be lead to when you hover over the link with your cursor.
 * Keeps links organized
 * Would be a pain if the redirect pages themselves got moved or deleted
 * They're quicker to type out.


 * Also with redirect links you get that "Redirected from X" message and the URL bar displays the redirect title instead of the actual page name. 19:39, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

The first one is actually not true. If you hover over a link you're literally going to get all the links that start with that article names. Second one isn't true really either. They'll be organized anyway since they go to the same place. I already mentioned how the third one isn't an issue at all. SeaTerror (talk) 19:28, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

What? So you don't see "Portgas D. Ace" when you hover over this link? 19:32, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can someone explains me again what other benefits are there to use redirect links other then it's quicker?

The one I can think of is how when we convert redirect pages into article pages (like how we're converting all Volume redirects into separate volume articles right now), we won't have to go around looking for pages that link to the page the redirect used to lead to (like links in other pages that do this: Volume 1). That'll always be a problem when turning redirects into articles though.

Anyway, I think the "it's quicker" benifit is still a pretty valid reason. Redirect link is better than no link. 19:44, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

"Also with redirect links you get that "Redirected from X" message and the URL bar displays the redirect title instead of the actual page name." Not an issue. Also that was the wrong way JOP. Talking about links on articles when hovering. A lot of Luffy links use to exist before the bad redirects were deleted. SeaTerror (talk) 19:47, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, please re-clarify what you mean by "the wrong way"? 19:59, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

@JOP: I always said that I think we have to use redirect for merged pages, like Volume 1, Mozu, Lapahn... that's because the redirect is the actual subject you are linking while the merged page is a page we created to better organize/hold different subjects, but it's not what you wanted to link. The redirect that IMO we shouldn't use are those like "Luffy", "Whitebeard"... for the opposite reason: you want to link to "Monkey D. Luffy", not "Luffy", you use that only as shortcut. You also will never have that issue you mentioned with those redirects.

Ah, I got the merged pages part. Sorry, when a forum goes on for a while, I just.. forget what people said before o_o

So Levi, are you for allowing only pipe links other than ones that link to merged pages? Personally, I think we should still strongly prefer pipe links but not have any rule that prevents people from using redirect links as shortcuts (which can be fixed with bot sweeps and/or by other users).

We should think of people who use redirect links as shortcuts not as "lazy", but as people who are willing to invest some of their precious time and extra efforts to our wiki, but would rather avoid stressing over every single detail. 01:30, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I think:
 * Luffy > Luffy . I think it's better, but I'm not too sure about "disallowing" this at this point, it's probably just "preferred".
 * Lapahn > Animal Species/Alabasta Saga . I think we should use these and avoid the linking to the merged pages. Actually, we should also categorize these redirects as if they were real article.

First off, this forum is definitely not complete, and no decision has been reached. We still need more input on my proposed rule. As well as continued discussion about merged pages, etc.

JOP's rule earlier is the same as my idea, just worded differently. Anyways, it's very likely that Meganoide and I do disagree on this. But in case any minds can be changed, let me explain my logic behind my idea and add some addition clarification.

The current rule is only pipe links. I hate that. It limits us, potentially alienates new users who are used to using redirects, and creates the obligation that if any editor uses a redirect instead of a pipe link, another user must correct it.

As far as Meganoide's concerns, people will edit rule based on what the rules allow. IF we had decided to allow both forms of links with no preference, there would be edit wars, as there are people in the world who prefer opposing link types. IF we continue the old policy and allow only pipe links, there will be no edit wars. However, I want to relax the rule and allow both forms of link, as this forum was started to accomplish. There's where my problem is. In order to allow both, you need a preference for one type. And in order to stop the activity feed from being crammed with people just changing links (and also defeating the whole purpose of allowing both types), you need to create policy to not allow edits to change links all the time. Even if you say it's not a problem for you to change the links for yourself and your time, it is a problem for those who are watching your edits, as these edits can be made very quickly, and you should consider them when you form your opinion. Do you understand my opinion now, or do you have any more questions?

I would also say that redirects are definitely cleaner for animals (often merged pages) and links involved on tables. We could talk about making some situations where redirects are preferred, but once again, those changes become very hard to monitor for. 02:33, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to merged pages are called "Authorized Redirects" and their usage is allowed. The redirect template documentation explains this all pretty well. 02:46, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

What I said to do is exactly how you avoid edit wars. There should be no preference and the links are left alone as they are created. Done. No edit wars. SeaTerror (talk) 04:17, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are usually wanted when the real link would expose a major spoiler. Do we have any of those situations so far? 04:42, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

If somebody is spoiled then it would be their own fault for getting on the wiki. SeaTerror (talk) 04:49, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Gotta agree with ST on the spoiler part. Anyway, what difference does it make to be spoiled by hovering vs being linked to the page and being spoiled by the actual title?

However, I don't think "links are left alone as they are created" should be a rule either. If people want to fix links to their preferred format (see Levi's bulleted list) in order to better organize the wikia, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We'll let people do it if they want, and if they don't want to, they won't have to either because there is no rule obligating them to do so either. It's good for us to be flexible like this so that more people will willingly help the site improve. 05:05, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

The only "spoiler" link situation I've heard of is "Trafalgar D. Water Law", which can be solved (and should already be thanks to a bot) by making it "Trafalgar D. Water Law|Trafalgar Law" via pipe link for all links to him.

And SeaTerror the HUGE problem with leaving the links the way they were created is the massive amount of time it takes to find out what the original form actually was. Here's a challenge: On Alabasta Arc there's a line "While the fight continues, Miss All Sunday takes the nails painfully out of Cobra's body and cuffs him with her powers to force the King to the location of Pluton." In that sentence "Miss All Sunday" is a link. Tell me what form it was originally, then tell me exactly how much time it took for you to figure that out. It took me about 10-15 minutes, but hey, I might be stupider than you. I think it would be an absolute waste of everyone's time if we had to do that every time someone altered a link. 12:55, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Pretty obvious which one that was originally. Miss All Sunday would have been linked as Miss All Sunday since "Nico Robin" didn't exist until after the arc had ended. Altering links will lead to edit wars anyway since people prefer one or the other. SeaTerror (talk) 20:34, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

"Pretty obvious" - I don't think that's obvious, in fact if you check, Chapter 217 (when Nico Robin joined the crew) was released in 2002, while the article was created in 2006 and in fact it had even a line like "Meanwhile the Officer Agents of the Baroque Works met up with Miss All-Sunday" where the link Miss All-Sunday was used.

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Chapter_217?diff=93261&oldid=18791 Original history when it was first created. The link said Robin by itself and nothing about Miss All-Sunday. SeaTerror (talk) 20:54, July 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Not the right link at all. The quoted passage I said does not exist in that history entry. 21:31, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

@ST: And what has to do with anything? I quoted chapter 217 because you implied that Miss All Sunday true identity wasn't know until the end of arc, but the arc page was written way later when her identity was well known and indeed a "Nico Robin" link was used, therefore it's not obvious at all that Miss All Sunday was the original link.

I support JSD's suggestion. 21:42, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

^ Enjoy your edit wars. SeaTerror (talk) 21:45, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Again, my rule is that once links are in Pipe form, they stay there. No edit wars will happen, and if they do, bans will be given out, just like regular vandalism. 21:47, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Your rule is bad then since you can't treat one better over the other especially when the forum already showed there is nothing wrong with using redirects anyway. Plus that wasn't in your original suggestion anyway since all you said was to "prefer" one over the other. SeaTerror (talk) 21:49, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

"Prefer" means just that. Prefer to keep links in one form. Butif you read one of my earlier post about the logic behind it, you'll understand why I came up with the idea. 21:59, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

"Here's my proposal:

Allow both forms of link, but ultimately prefer Pipe Links. However, we do not allow edits that exist only to change "unbroken source code"."

It says absolutely nothing about making it so you can't also change pipe links to redirects. The only thing it says is to not only allow those types of edits. I brought that up earlier too since there would be nothing wrong with a person also changing pipe links to redirects. It's stupid to prefer either one which is why I said we would need to just leave the links as they are. Don't make it retroactive and it would be easy to find which one is the original edit on current arcs and other pages. SeaTerror (talk)

Again, what I meant by use of the word "prefer", I meant to say that we leave any links that are changed in Pipe Link form. You can hang on to your interpretation of my words if you like, but my intent is still the same and has been from the beginning. If anyone else didn't get what I meant, I apologize.

As it stands right now though, ST is alone in his opinion of "original link form", correct? So I don't think we need to keep arguing over that, as we are ignoring the important topic of what to do with links to merged pages, etc. 23:47, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Then you also have to make it against the rules to change redirects into pipe links if you want to go that far. Since there should also be no reason to change the redirect form.

Also as for the lag argument there was a slight improvement in load time. http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User:SeaTerror/Sandbox2?action=history vs Dressrosa Arc article. SeaTerror (talk) 00:10, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

@ST: ROFL, than it's an argument in my favor, since if you empty a page by removing 224.571 characters, you have just a "slight" improvement, then simply by a proportion, removing very few characters in an article doesn't have any impact at all as it was already expected. If you can't load Wikia, don't blame the links.

@JSD:
 * "..as we are ignoring the important topic of what to do with links to merged pages, etc."
 * - I think those kinds of redirects are listed in Category:Authorized Redirects, Levi. Awaikage 00:24, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about that, Levi. Are there any other considerations we need to make, or are we all set here?

And ST, I don't "have to make it against the rules to change redirects into pipe links". That's the whole point of the word "prefer". It's not about the ability to change pipes to redirects, but the ability to make new links in redirect form, if people choose. 01:33, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Seems we're all set. 01:41, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'll be fine with using redirects IF and ONLY IF they are used on the "see" templates, such as on this one. Not even looking forward with agreeing with any redirect to be used at all.

I guess Levi doesn't know what the word "temporary" means or is too lazy to click the differences in the history. Also do I seriously have to post the definition of the word prefer? The word prefer doesn't mean "rules". It only means you prefer something. "I prefer ice cream over cake." SeaTerror (talk) 17:53, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Even though I support using redirects, I'm OK with pipe links being preferred because they actually link to the article. ST, even though changing a link in any way is pointless, shortening it so that it links to a redirect is even worse than changing it to an actual page linking. It's also why the proposal has rules in terms of constructive edits needing to accompany any link changes. 18:18, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Redirects link to the actual article too. It isn't like a Luffy link goes to Wapol. Also I just showed how cutting down on the extra links in an article can lower some of the lag on my sandbox. SeaTerror (talk) 18:30, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

"@ST: ROFL, than it's an argument in my favor, since if you empty a page by removing 224.571 characters, you have just a "slight" improvement, then simply by a proportion, removing very few characters in an article doesn't have any impact at all as it was already expected. If you can't load Wikia, don't blame the links." 18:35, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I can load them just fine. Levi was just too lazy to compare the differences since he assumed the undoing version was the real version. Any improvement is a good thing, no matter how small it is. SeaTerror (talk) 18:38, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

So the definition of "prefer" doesn't fit with what I meant? So I'm an idiot, but who cares? My intent remains the same, and whatever rule comes out of here will use language that matches my intent, not the one word I semi-randomly chose to use in my first post. 22:17, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

A problem with using redirects instead of pipe links is that in the event an article is moved, there may be a chance that we miss some redirects in the thousands of articles we have on this wiki. Yes, yes, we do all in our power to change all the redirects to the proper ones, but the chances of missing one or two is still possible. I mean, Harry Potter use pipe links, seems like they just haven't bothered to keep track more recently. 00:07, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

It's better than having to change pipe links into different pipe links when its page is moved (i.e. Law) 00:13, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a benefit of this rule is that as long as a properly spelled redirect like "Trafalgar Law" is used, we would not be required to change the links if his name was revealed to be "Trafalgar D. Example Law", by bot or otherwise. 00:23, July 8, 2015 (UTC)