Forum:Redirects and Other Link Issues

In the Manual of Style forum, a conversation came up concerning the use of redirects over the use of pipe links. For those of you unfamiliar with the matter, redirects are things like, while pipe links are like this. I'm not as familiar with this, so for a bit of background, see the MoS forum.

Recently, I have also noticed a bit of a dispute between the use of possessive links (Ace's vs. Ace's). While the first example is certainly less coding, I personally think that it looks better to have the entire word linked instead of part of it. Correct if I'm wrong, but I think that once the 's is added, it becomes part of the word, and I think it looks bad to have part of the word linked. However, there are people who think differently, as I learned when I discussed this matter with SeaTerror.

If there are any other problems that may fit under the umbrella of this blog, please add them. I thought it would be better to split this forum into two separate parts since I brought up two issues (however, I felt they were somewhat related, so I only made one forum). Thanks. 14:41, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Redirects vs. Pipe Links Discussion
Before anything else, I'd like to say that the laziness criteria (less coding is good) is not the best way to go, with this I mean you can choose to use a way instead of another one because it's faster and/or simpler, but that's not a reason to make it a rule. It's our problem as editor to use the correct way (if there is one) rather then the faster way.

About redirects: the redirect is technically not this: Luffy (the link), but rather this: Luffy (the page) which is a page that redirect the viewer to another one.

Learn what laziness is. If we were lazy then we would leave the redirects alone. SeaTerror (talk) 17:20, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any rule how to set links on an article. Other wikias may have either a less restrictive rule or leave it completely open to the author who adds content. But what is completely useless is to do minor edits (or even edit wars) on switching from piped to redirect and vice versa only as per "Do not fix unbroken code." -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 17:33, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DefChris. I don't think we really need a rule on this, as long as we have a rule against editing to change them. Like I said in the MoS page, we should have these fall under the rule of "Do not fix unbroken source code" and have people who break these rules be warned and told that it can become a ban-worthy offense. Additionally, we should make the undoing of those edits of unbroken code just as bad, if not a worse offense then editing them to begin with. That way, people can write the links how they want, and we can stop the edit wars. 01:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that normally there shouldn't be the need of such rules and more then a rule, I'd prefer a style model which is preferable to follow, rather than a formal guideline. However I honestly don't understand really much the "Do not fix unbroken code" rule: does that mean that I cannot fix, for example, the infoboxes that usually are all messy in the pages? And what if I edit an article/paragraph for other reason but together with my other changes I edit some "unbroken code" to "my tastes"? What about editing unbroken code with a bot then? And the most important, what will you do if someone actually does it? Because acting like the anti-useless edits guardian reverting everything is stupid in my opinion.

Anyway I'll repost my opinion on redirects:
 * Fixing not canon name redirects is a good thing, for example something like "Jimbe → Jinbe".
 * Fixing short-name or nickname redirects is irrelevant, I don't see it as a task to do, but I don't see a reason to undo it. Some example "Luffy → Monkey D. Luffy" or "Whitebeard → Edward Newgate", just a note some people may prefer to see the actual name in the tooltip instead of a nickname (Whitebeard vs Whitebeard) (and technically the short-name case is a little different from the nickname case, because fixing the latter is more reasonable in my opinion).
 * Fixing redirect to merged pages as well different topic pages is a bad thing, for example "Gear Second → Gomu Gomu no Mi/Gear Second Techniques" or "Shandian Village → Skypiea#Shandian Village". This is because in these cases the redirect works as an anchor for a concept or a topic different from the page which is redirecting to, this is useful because if in future we decide to make the Gear Second tab a page on its own, we don't have to fix the links.
 * About "there is a reason why redirects exist", the main reason the redirects are used is to work as anchor link for merged articles or synonymous. And as Defchris said in the other forum, by purposely using redirects over correct links you cannot check where are the links pointing to an article with WhatLinksHere and you increase the chances of creating broken or double redirects, this is a big cons in my opinion.

Concerning the "unbroken source code" proposal.....could we reword that to say "Redirects and piped links are both acceptable methods; whenever one is found, please leave it the way it is. Editing or reverting edits of this matter could be subject for a ban." or "Do not fix fix unbroken source code in links" or something along those lines. I would prefer a concrete, one-or-the-other decision, but I think it would certainly be possible to just leave them be. 11:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable, I like the "Redirects and piped links are both acceptable methods" (but only for different names links, since using wrong-name redirects or fixing merged articles redirects is wrong in my opinion as I said in the post above). However this should be limited to the specific case of an edit with the only purpose to change the link, if you edit the link while rewording a sentence or a paragraph it should be fine (otherwise we will basically set a rule that nobody can change a link format on a article, which is absurd).

Yeah, wording is a little tricky, but that sounds good to me. The purpose of this is to prevent people having edit wars over one or two words which are linked in a way they don't like. How about this: "Redirects and pipe links are both acceptable linking methods. Do not go out of your way to use one method or the other, as editing or reverting over a redirect vs. pipe link case may result in a ban. However, fixing wrong-name redirects and merged articles is acceptable and may be done freely." We don't have to decide on the exact wording anyways, just on a policy so it can be implemented. 12:18, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

The most common name should be used. Whitebeard has only been called Newgate twice in the series. Once in the introduction infobox and once in the chapter where he died during the flashback. SeaTerror (talk) 17:15, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. And anyways, the most common name isn't really the issue. The page name is Edward Newgate, and most pages refer to him as Whitebeard anyways. The method of linking the two is the problem. If everyone feels like discussion is over, then we can do a poll or simply go along with the "don't fix unbroken code in redirects" rule. 17:36, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Though you shouldn't confuse the name displayed with the name linked: the choice of using "Whitebeard" over "Edward Newgate" doesn't imply to use  over. I don't understand why some users are fixed on using redirects, the redirect works by relying on another page, the two syntax are not equivalent. That's why I personally prefer using correct links, the cons of using redirects are: we cannot check which pages actually link to the subject, increase the chance of creating double or broken redirects and the user get a redirect notice (this is trivial); on the other hand pipe links have no cons that I can think of. As I said before generally there is no a real correct way, but then it's up the editor choice. So to avoid edit wars like before, we can say that we should not purposely edit only links, but remember there are also tools meant to correct redirects, so it's not so strange like many think to use correct links.

In the end we should just let the editors do what they want and simply avoiding edit war like before.

I don't much, so I'd like to ask if we can go to the redirect pages and then see which pages use them? 17:48, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Another issue about using links on redirect pages for sure is that Redirects can break without any author or admin's intervention. As I've recently learned, some users here disregard or even "fear" Wikia's changes and modifications - so you may consider that "they" might pull the plug to use those pages for advertisement, as they ask founders/administrators to change the start page for example.
 * And then, it's not the redirects purpose to serve as valid link target in articles. They are there for "multiple names, [...] alternative punctuation, capitalization or spellings."
 * Which is why I prefer the piped links in addition to Leviathan's reasons, too. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 11:30, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * *bump* How about a poll? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 11:26, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

What would the poll options be? 17:37, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

"Redirects only", "pipe links only", and "don't fix unbroken source code" (or something along those lines). 17:43, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The only question is are we really ready for a poll? Have all the questions in the discussion been answered? 21:58, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the time for the poll is up. There had been edit wars over this, and an user even got banned for this. This issue had been long overdue. 22:01, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is not the right way to decide this, since you cannot use redirects only ore piped links only (there are exceptions to both). I would have preferred to discuss each link "type" (different names, nicknames, link to merged articles...) and decide for each of them what to do.


 * Actually, I think you're right Levi. It would be much harder to police things like this, but overall, it would lead to the best outcome. 01:11, September 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that the cases being specifically addressed were the basic Ace vs. Ace . Possessive links are below, and if you have any other examples, we could address those right here so that they are all in one place. The whole "redirects only" only applies in cases where either one could be used without affecting the outer appearance of the link. At least that was my impression. 02:25, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of syntax, although I like more pipe links, I think there are some cases where it is fundamentally wrong to use pipe links instead of redirects, I'm talking about link to merged articles: Kabuto was merged in Usopp's Arsenal, but using  instead of   it's inefficient, simply because if we ever separate the articles or even change the title section's name (it's also case sensitive), the link will break and we will have to update every link manually. Using redirect for this kind of pages instead, is better because if we change the position of that subject we will simply have to update the redirect. Anyway, read my previous post.

You're totally right, Levi, though I think this poll concerns the simplest cases only—those that provoked so many edit wars and Meganoide's ban, e.g. Ace, Luffy, or Whitebeard. The matter is rather technical already for a majority of users, so I think it's best that we avoid adding special cases now. Your indication that “exceptions may be discussed later” is enough for now in my opinion.

We should change the poll then to reflect that it's only about simple name redirects, yeah? 15:20, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Redirects vs. Pipe Links Poll
Looks to me like it's time for the poll. The poll will end in one week's time on the 22st of September (2:00 UTC). You must have 300 edits, and been active for three months to vote. If you have a problem with the poll, or a question, don't hesitate to ask.

Example: Ace (gives Ace).
 * Use redirects only (exceptions may be discussed later)

Example: Ace (gives Ace).
 * Use pipe links only (exceptions may be discussed later)
 * 1) (Hovering the link tells the actual page you'd go to.)
 * 2)  15:22, September 8, 2012 (UTC) Surprised, guys? :P
 * 3)  15:27, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  (There are some exceptions which I've already mentioned before)
 * 1)  15:22, September 8, 2012 (UTC) Surprised, guys? :P
 * 2)  15:27, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  (There are some exceptions which I've already mentioned before)


 * Do not edit unbroken source code.
 * 02:34, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:36, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 03:01, September 8, 2012 (UTC) (This means editor's preference for new links)

Possessive Links Discussion
Most of you probably think that this isn't that big of an issue, but I think that we can afford to be a little more black-and-white here. As I stated above, I think that possessive links (Ace's) should be written they way I just wrote them; the whole word, 's and all, is linked. To the best of my knowledge, when the 's is added, the word is changed into a new form, like adding -ing to a verb. My justification is that linking only part of a word looks sloppy to me, but as I saw in the last blog, some people disagreed. One person I talked to said "we just don't do it that way". Oh, here is a site I found explaining possessive forms (no, I haven't read through the whole thing). 02:02, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I defenitly agree that Ace's looks better than Ace's, and since it is gramatically correct I don't see why we wouldn't always use Ace's

Because of the coding. Its extra unneeded coding that should never had been put on articles in the first place. The most common name should be used also. SeaTerror (talk) 16:39, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * If it looks good on the page, what is an extra 10 characters or so? I thought that page appearance was a priority over source appearance. 16:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even look good. SeaTerror (talk) 17:11, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok....but it looks better than Ace's....in my opinion anyways. 17:18, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PX, it looks better to have Ace|Ace's in the articles because then all the text of the same word is the same color. It just looks better, and that's what matters, not how it looks or how long it is in source mode. We need to make the site more fluid in the actual articles not source mode. The extra code isn't "unneeded" if it makes the articles work better, and the extra code is actually really needed. As editors, it's easier for Ace]]'s, but as readers it is not. And the same goes for double links like Marine Admiral and possessive double links like Luffy's bounty. It's a bad and complicated situation no matter what we choose, but I think what PX has suggested is the best we can make of a bad situation. 17:26, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying the Wikia readers are idiots who could easily get confused by reading Ace's? The article looks fine how it is and there is no real reason to want to link the whole thing. Double links don't look bad either. SeaTerror (talk) 17:30, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Do think that we're trying to change some longstanding policy on possessive links? There is no policy, and possessive links are inconsistent across the whole wiki. We are trying to create one consistent policy, not shake up everything because we're bored. It needs resolution because random IPs come in all the time and change possessive links to both forms. 17:34, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I have only ever seen an IP change it from Ace's to Ace's and those IPs were most likely the banned Meganoide. If you want it consistent then make it Ace's because it does look better. SeaTerror (talk) 17:44, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * So you think it looks better to link part of a word and leave the other part unlinked? 17:57, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, please explain in detail why you think that. 18:07, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is no further argument, then can we just go ahead with my proposal? If someone has something to say, please bring it up now, I hate having to bump this forum every two or three days. 03:11, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

As much as I find the source code ugly and redundant, I can't help but notice that PX is right: the possessive suffix seems to be part of the word (contrary e.g. to verb contractions), so it should be linked together with the word.


 * This appears to me as the ongoing debate in (the German) Wikipedia to break links of word compounds, so only a part of it is in link color while the rest appears as standard text.
 * The possessive links should be done as  Ace's  or even better  Ace's . Looks better and is no real effort to put in code. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 11:08, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with Chris in that if we're gonna use |Ace's]] that we should probably do Ace's. If we're making the effort to use piped links (?) we should make the extra effort to avoid redirects. But I don't know if that is going to be a difficult rule to follow...

Regardless of that, are we all agreed that possessives should be in the link? Can we make at least that part official now? 15:54, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that doesn't seem too hard. If we have the piped link already, we might as well just go all the way. 16:38, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to keep the possessives out of the links, by which I mean Luffy's. It's just simpler that way and requires less effort. I don't think it looks bad to do it that way. 21:16, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Possessive Links Poll Structure discussion
Not really. The responses to this thread aren't indicative of the community opinion, so there should be a poll on the issue. Also, the problem with having an official position is what happens when people do it the other way - we'll end up with lots of people pointlessly editing unbroken links which is counterproductive. 16:46, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Not every forum requires a poll, and I personally don't think that possessive links requires one. And the problem with having an unofficial position is a lack of consistency between the pages and edit wars between users with different opinions. The "don't fix unbroken links" standpoint works with redirects and pipe links (above) where they appear the same on the page, but different here where there are two different styles that have different appearances. 17:04, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the possessive side of this forum needs a poll. The redirects side probably does require a poll. The only person in opposition of the possessive links is SeaTerror, who is currently banned, and as part of that ban, has lost the right to participate in this forum.

And personally, I kinda do see the possessive links as errors, so if people went around fixing them, I wouldn't consider it spam of the activity. We would have to have it stated in our Manual of Style though. Or just something to refer people who "correct" things the wrong way to in order to have them stop. 17:27, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen in general more people write them as example's though. It was never just SeaTerror. People have just been apathetic towards this forum. Four people in favour of your way is far from a community majority, which would be necessary to avoid edit wars. And yes, I'm against changing them all because it's not worth the headache. If you can miraculously find a way to ensure total compliance without any edit wars then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but the history shows that that's just not gonna happen. 17:58, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm against inconsistency 100%. If people decided to make everything Nami's I wouldn't be up in arms. But leaving everything the way it is (which is inconsistent) is simply unacceptable to me. The only reason there are edit wars is because there is no policy on these. The edit wars will continue as long as there is no policy on this. The edit wars will stop if there is. If we make a policy now, and people don't follow it, and edit war, those people will be banned, plain and simple. That's how we'll stop edit wars. That's how edit wars are prevented when people don't follow any of our other rules, why should this be any different?

If we really need a poll about this, then I propose there be no "leave everything the way it is" option. We cannot afford to be inconsistent. 18:13, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with JSD on the poll option. We cannot be inconsistent, as this is an encyclopedia on One Piece, and we should be formal, consistent, correct, leave speculations out and so on. 20:34, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Except that JSD doesn't want a poll at all, and Pacifista15 is already going around doing edits that do nothing but change []'s to ['s]. I want consistency too, but I want a poll to make sure that we're being consistent with the format preferred by a majority of users. 03:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

SO what do you prefer to use, Zodia? []'s or ['s]? Personally, I don't really care, as it don't effect where the link go to, but since we must be consistence, I'll keep thinking on this one. 03:15, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

The majority of users haven't even bothered to comment on this forum. If they feel so strongly one way or another, then they should comment. If they don't comment, that seems to me like a general "I-don't-care" so it could go either way. If you want, go ahead and post a poll, but I think that it's unnecessary. 03:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wow, PX and I agree a lot here. I'm not opposed to a poll, I just don't see the need for one. If you want a poll Zodiaque, make it. I won't stop you, and if that's really what you want, I encourage you to make it too. 03:19, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Draft poll questions:

1. Should possessives be included in links?
 * Yes ( Nami's → Nami's )
 * No ( Nami's → Nami's )

2. Should any or all links formatted as the losing option be changed to the winning option?
 * Yes (Uniformity)
 * No (Leave unbroken source code as it is)

I'm well aware that people in this discussion thread think the second question is unnecessary, but I want a broader consensus given that there would be a lot of links to be changed. 03:53, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of the first question if the "no" on the second question wins. It takes away all the authority of the first question, kind of rendering the poll meaningless... 04:01, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We should only have the first question, as it was stated above that these are broken links. And as Zodiaque has already noticed, I wouldn't mind editing these links to the correct format, whichever it turns out to be. 04:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can make it clearer in the poll that Q2 is the main issue. If Q2 was answered 'yes' then that would make Q1 enforceable, and if 'no' it would indicate a general preference without being enforceable. The other alternative would be running two separate polls (Q2 then Q1), but it's quicker and easier to run them concurrently. Running them separately would also be an issue if people's answers to one question depended on the answer to the other for any reason.

Bottom line: if you want the links changed, then win the poll. You should be able to do in a landslide. 04:25, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that makes the odds unfairly stacked against us in the 2 question format. It shouldn't have to be an uphill battle for us, or anyone. If you really want the "leave everything" option, why not make one question with 3 possible answers?

1) Nami's 2) Nami's 3) Leave everything/editors preference.

Again though, the only way edit wars will stop is if we take a hardcore stance on this. Option 3 will not stop edit wars. 04:40, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Three options doesn't work in my view, as it leads to wasted votes or people having to change their votes so that they aren't wasted, which is finicky. There's also the problem that a preference for one form over the other, and choosing whether to change them or leave them as they are are two distinct concepts and an opinion on one isn't indicative of an opinion on the other.

All you need is >50% on Q2 and you get your wish of consistency. That's not unfairly stacked in slightest. 05:19, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Zodiaque. With one question only, it's impossible to state "what matters is consistency, but I personally would go with…" for example.

@Zodiaque No, we have to get a majority on both polls, while you have to get the majority on only one to get your way. @sff Are you saying that we should promote inconsistency? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. 16:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a valid option… Who knows, maybe "do not fix unbroken code" would win, even if you think it is not unbroken…

@Pacifista: Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. There are two distinct questions that need to be answered - should we change all the links at all, and if so what should they be changed to. The responses to the two questions will determine which of three outcomes are reached: change all links to possessive included, change all links to possessive excluded, or do nothing. I'm structuring the poll in the way I've described instead of doing a three-option poll because it allows anyone who doesn't want the links to be changed to put down a preference for which method of linking is preferred, and unlike a comment next to the person's signature this will be taken into account when deciding what form to change all the links to if/when Q2 is answered in the affirmative.

I honestly do believe that the option for consistency will win. I also honestly want it to win. However, omitting the option to leave things as they are from the poll would defeat the purpose of having a poll in the first place, given that it is a valid option, and the aim of the poll is to gauge the community opinion on the issue and act appropriately based on that opinion, given that in my experience people are more receptive to advertised polls than long discussions like what this has become.

If anyone has any legitimate concerns as to how this poll is being run (of similar nature to the concerns raised by Levi in relation to the piped links poll) then I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, I'll start this poll within the next 24 hours. This has dragged on long enough as it is. 06:06, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the need to have the 2 question format for 3 possible outcomes. If people want us to do nothing with the links, they will vote for "do nothing" not "do nothing, but I like option A better." That is because they should truly want us to do nothing. They should decide that they are truly happiest with us doing nothing with the links, not make some sort of vote that is an inconclusive compromise. And If they do vote for "do nothing, but I like option A better", then that vote in no way should affect option A. If near the end of the poll, they find that nothing is losing substantially and they want to change their, vote that is ok. Changing your is something we allow here, and polls should not be structured only to avoid people having to change their vote. And people are allowed to comment next to their vote as well. I don't see why we have to make a poll that avoids people doing something they are entirely allowed to do.

And because PX and I have such a large problem with your poll design, I would appreciate it if it was not opened in 24 hours. The only thing worse than arguing about poll design is continuing to argue about it while the poll is going on. 15:46, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

So... because the option to change votes exists, I'm not allowed to create a system that avoids that? And why is that? The way I've done it allows people to vote once based on their opinions and not have to check back to make sure their vote isn't being wasted. And for the record, being able to vote 'leave it as it is, but I would prefer this option' is an option I would have liked for the piped links poll, because that's my current opinion on the matter, but I'm not allowed to do that because of its poor design. You haven't made a convincing argument as to why my poll is unfair, given that there are three outcomes either way. 16:58, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

PX and I are looking to make a rule on this matter. We aren't looking to fully understand everybody in the wikia's opinions on this matter. We do have to do that to an extent in order to make our rule, but the complete understanding of the wikia is not our main focus. I want to create a simple poll that leads to the creation of a clear rule. Your poll design is a nice measure of the wiki's opinion, but I don't think we need that, and I actually think it's distracting from the purpose of this forum. There are 3 possible outcomes. Let people have one vote for one outcome. Not two votes for 3 outcomes. I don't see anything that can be gained by having an extra vote for the same number of outcomes.

And as far as the unfairness PX and I are referring to: With the 1 question, 3 answers option, we have a 33% chance of getting what we want, and a 67% chance of consistency (which is what we really want). Every possible outcome has a 33% chance of winning. But with your poll style, one outcome gets a 50% chance, and the others get only 25% (and the chance of consistency goes down to only 50%). We see the drastic changes in our odds as unfair, especially because it leads to the strong favoring of one option.

I don't think "I don't think we should change anything, but I prefer this" will lead to the creation of a clear rule. It will lead people to not take a complete stand on the issue, they will try to take a middle-of-the-road stance by voting for option 1 or 2, then voting to not change anything. If they really think they should vote for nothing, then should they vote for nothing, not "nothing, but..." I don't see anything that could be gained by not going with the most simple poll structure. 18:20, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning would be correct if people's opinion were dependant of the poll, but it's not the case! If most voters want to leave things as is, you lose, whatever the poll. If most voters want consistency, then you get it, whatever the poll. All in all, if everybody follows the poll closely and changes their vote at the appropriate time, then the two polls will have exactly the same outcome. Nonetheless, Zodiaque's version is simpler (no need to monitor the poll and change votes) and more fair (there's always people who forget to change their vote or something). These are the advantages of going the "complicated" way. There is no drawback. (And note that the "simple" version is actually biased towards inconsistency… 34% of votes for "leave it as is" are enough, even if the majority wants consistency…)

Also, the poll as shown above looks fine to me. 02:18, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Even though I don't like it much, for the sake of getting this over with, let's go with it. 03:58, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I hate it, but I want the poll to be over with. I'm also eventually gonna move some things around a bit so I can separate our discussion about the poll from the discussion about the issue, if that's ok. I just don't wanna bore people with this argument and have people be likely to actually read the whole thing. 04:03, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll get it started. I know you don't trust me by this point, but please believe me when I say I've done the maths, and the probabilities and distributions are the same under both polls, and you made a mistake by doing the maths as if people were choosing from four outcomes under this poll when they're choosing from three. I'll also make it clear that people are allowed to vote on only one question if they want, so they can vote for either consistency or doing nothing without specifying a preference as to which method should be chosen. 05:10, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with my math? I always did it for three outcomes. I'm just curious at this point... 05:18, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you have to go into it knowing that there are three outcomes, and people will vote based on which of those three outcomes they want. So if you say for the sake of comparison that people are equally likely (1/3) to choose each of the three options (A - change to possessives included, B - change to possessives excluded, C - do nothing), then the following will occur: People wanting A will vote yes and yes, people wanting B will vote no and yes, people wanting C will vote yes/no and no. So for Question 1, each option has a 50% chance of winning, but for Question 2 consistency has a 2/3 chance of winning (because the people wanting A and B will vote for it). So even though it's a yes/no question, it's not 50/50. If it was, then it would still be 50/50 for/against consistency even in the three option poll. So overall, for A and B the probability would be 1/2 x 2/3 = 1/3 (based on the answers to both questions), and C it's 1/3 as well (based just on question 2, because Q1 doesn't matter). Sorry if that doesn't make sense... not sure if I can explain it better. 05:38, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't there the option "leave it to the user's choice"?
 * That's included in do nothing, right? 16:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Possessive Links Poll
Time for the poll. The poll will end in two weeks on the 25th of September (6:00 UTC). You must have 300 edits, and been active for three months to vote.

This poll has two questions. You are free to vote on one but not the other if you choose. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
 * If you want all links changed so that possessives are included, vote Yes for both questions.
 * If you want all links changed so that possessives are excluded, vote Yes for Question 1, and No for Question 2.
 * If you do not want any links to be changed, vote No for Question 2. You can still answer Question 1, and if so your choice will be taken into account in the event that the option for consistency wins.


 * Question 1: Should possessives be included in links?
 * Yes (Example: Nami's → Nami's)


 * 05:51, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)   22:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * No (Example: Nami's → Nami's)


 * 06:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC) I have a slight preference for excluding them, but consistency of either kind is fine.


 * Question 2: Should all links formatted as the losing option be changed to the winning option?
 * Yes (Absolute consistency across the wiki)


 * 05:51, September 11, 2012 (UTC) (but I don't think a complete hunt for them is 112% necessary. Just change it when you see it.)
 * 06:02, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC) I will change them myself if absolutely necessary.
 * 16:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC) Consistency is the only way to stop edit wars.
 * 22:25, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)   22:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * No (Leave all possessive links as they are, and editor's preference for new ones)



General Discussion
What should we do with things like titles? Like should we use Dr. Hogback or Dr. Hogback ? I know we don't consider the titles to be part of their name as far as the article title is concerned, but it seems a bit incomplete to me to have the "Dr." outside the link. If a quick easy answer isn't provided, we should make this a new forum section. 02:48, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Dr Hogback, without any hesitation. The entity that is linked is “Dr Hogback”, not just the name “Hogback”.

Even for "captain", "vice admiral" and such? Well I kinda agree.

Just a quick question, but should other puncuations also be included with the links? Like if I was ending a sentence with " Ace. " making "Ace."? Should the period be included in the link? 17:48, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

God, no! Possessives are ambiguous cause they're (debatably) part of the word, but punctuation sure as hell never is!

@Levi, I think titles that are ranked would be different links. So Vice Admiral Vergo, Captain Gol D. Roger, etc. Titles that aren't ranks, like Dr., etc I'm less sure of. 17:58, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

@Sff9: Alrighty then. Well, if you see any at the current moment, t's most likely because I derped at 2 in the morning or something.

@Levi and SomeDude: I believe "Dr." is just as part of a name as "Vice Admiral", and should be included in the link. 18:31, September 11, 2012 (UTC)