7,364
edits
Forum:Linked Possessives: Difference between revisions
m
Old forum, moving to Realm of Sleep
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Old forum, moving to Realm of Sleep) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|The World that Never was}} | {{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I think that we should just decide on one format for links in their possessive form. Personally, I prefer the latter of the above two formats, just because it singles out the link. Please leave your opinions so that the necessary changes can be put into effect.}} | I think that we should just decide on one format for links in their possessive form. Personally, I prefer the latter of the above two formats, just because it singles out the link. Please leave your opinions so that the necessary changes can be put into effect.}} | ||
{{KrytenKoro|I like the second, because it has simpler coding.}} | {{KrytenKoro|I like the second, because it has simpler coding.}} | ||
{{HOO|time=04:16, November 10, 2009 (UTC)|text=Second one.}} | |||
{{yer mom|time=04:17, November 10, 2009 (UTC)|text=I prefer the first one, looks neater. Plus, Ultima spent a good ammount of time making links look like that, why not just continue with that?}} | |||
{{DTN|time=04:21, November 10, 2009 (UTC)|text=Even if Ultima spent time doing possessive links the first way, I have changed <big><u>'''''MANY'''''</u></big> possessive links to be in the second form, because I have thought that it looks neater.}} | |||
{{Neumannz|text=yeah, i've noticed that. | |||
though i don't know how '''that's''' neater than the first option (which i choose)|time=04:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
{{MM841|08:08, November 10, 2009 (UTC)|Personally, I prefer [[Sora|Sora's]]. It's mainly because [[Sora]]'s makes it look like only half a word is being linked.}} | |||
{{LevL|text=I agree with Yermom, Neumannz and Ultima. It doesn't look neat when only half a word is linked.}} | |||
{{EO|time=23:44, November 10, 2009 (UTC)|text=Definitely the second one. The coding, as Kryten so eloquently put, is simpler. Plus, the pages are not titled Sora's or Riku's or Xigbar's. While the actual appearance of an unlinked letter or two may seem visually unattractive (sorry, Wiki Fairies), this is what is correct. I believe that now makes it 4 to 4.}} | |||
{{yer mom|time=02:31, November 11, 2009 (UTC)|text=Techcnically, both are correct. The coding (even if it's simpler) is not what appears in the final product, which is the page itself. The coding may look better but [[Sora]]'s looks uglier than [[Sora|Sora's]] >.>}} | |||
{{DTN|time=02:34, November 11, 2009 (UTC)|text="Uglier" really is just an opinion, Yer mom. It can be seen either way, mainly depending on what you consider the pros and cons of each format.}} | |||
{{EO|time=02:48, November 11, 2009 (UTC)|talktext=Pros would be they both link to the same page. Cons would be the general visual attraction. I personally don't give a damn if [[Sora]]'s looks ugly or not. As I said before, it's SORA, not SORA'S. The linking of a possessive seems very unprofessional to me, and if that's too strong, just sloppy in general.}} | |||
{{Neumannz|text=You think it looks sloppy? It's not like we're doing redirects for every conjugation, suffix, and contraction. It seems to me it's just courtesy to the user to have the whole word as the link instead of a fragment, even if the fragment is the entire article name.|time=03:53, November 11, 2009 (UTC)}} | |||