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)