This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358(Talk) 22:27, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
So, it seems one of the side-effects of the canon/Legends default switchover is that when the links were converted, those on real-world pages which originally linked to Legends pages were changed to link to the "/Legends" articles. However, this was just something that simply sort of happened, rather than anything that was ever really formally discussed. Personally, I think it would be better to link to the canon articles on pages such as "Bantha Music" (bantha) or actor pages like Ashley Eckstein, unless the page is about a Legends product or material, or there's a compelling to reason to do otherwise. (Particularly with Eckstein, it seems silly to link to link to a Legends Tano page that mentions nothing about Star Wars Rebels.) I'm going to split this into two votes. Vote for the first option if you agree with this - that real-world pages should link to the canon articles unless there's a reason not to, such as the page itself being about a Legends subject, or describing Legends material. Vote for the second option if you feel that such links should be left alone.
Oh, and I don't know if there's really a way for a bot to handle this, but I suppose it could just be done manually as people notice them, if need be.
Support (Legends links to be changed to canon on real-world pages such as actors where appropriate)Edit
I'd like clarification on what we're voting for. If a bot can't or won't handle this, then we're just supporting the idea of manually making links point to the most appropriate article—which is something we do as editors anyway (I've fixed this on a few pages), so the vote seems to have no real effect. (Would an oppose vote mean we believe links should point to something other than the most appropriate article? That seems like an absurd thing to vote on.) So are we just voting on whether a bot should do this? Asithol (talk) 00:22, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
Well, I had really intended for the vote to be on whether to do it at all, but if a vote isn't really necessary, then I say full-speed ahead. When you think about it, it's really just an extension of the idea of presenting canon material as the default. And as for a bot, if actually having one handle it is feasible, then yeah, that's great too. I'm just not sure if that would be workable. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:45, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, because the wording of the proposal (which says "unless... there's a compelling to reason to do otherwise") and of the ballot item (which says "where appropriate") are basically telling us to use our best judgment, it seems as though we're not really voting on anything concrete—other than exercising judgment, which we ought to be doing anyway.
A bot couldn't exercise such judgment, of course, but it may be worth having a bot change real-world articles across the board, and then having editors change links back to /Legends manually where appropriate, if that results in a smaller number of manual edits required. (I have no idea whether it would.) Perhaps that would be appropriate for a vote? Asithol (talk) 08:07, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the main reason this CT not gaining any traction is that the proposal as a whole is very unclear. What is the exact wording you want to be policy? Which policy do you want to amend? It would probably be a good idea to go over this in a Senate Hall thread and formulate an amendment together with others. (Hint: This is probably where you want the amendment to go) 1358(Talk) 22:39, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately there's no reason why this needs to be a CT. This doesn't need a vote - we already decided that canon pages take precedence, and there was never an existing policy about Legends links on real-world pages in the first place. Is there any mechanism for withdrawing a CT? Because if so, I'd recommend that be done and people just push ahead with changing links. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:15, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I'd be perfectly fine with just sending it out the door if there's nothing more to discuss and it can just be done. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:07, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
It's worth discussing whether/how to automate such a change, but a CT discussion thread probably isn't the best place. Asithol (talk) 06:31, January 4, 2016 (UTC)