Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-91424-20180429223157/@comment-26967699-20180430095659

Nightlily wrote:

Option 1) Keep the distinction and continue to use "(Storybrooke)" and "(Enchanted Forest)" as part of the article name.

Option 2) Ditch that, simply call the page "Granny" (or "Jefferson" or "Doc" or whatever) and use simple redirects to take care of any potential red links. Option 2. I don't even get why we're having a conversation about it LOL

Nightlily wrote:

CoolDueAl wrote: Option 2 makes more sense, but I still think this is yet another reason why the merge doesn't make sense in the first place.

Do you mean the fact that we are having a discussion about this in the first place? Believe me, I never even intended to have one; At first, when I started merging these pages, I scratched the "Storybrooke" / "Enchanted Forest" distinction; I was sure no one would want to keep that; call me naive, but I couldn't for the life of me see why anyone would even want to use it. However, the edit was reverted on the grounds that this wasn't what people agreed on, so in order to solve it, I had to put it to a vote, even if it shouldn't even be necessary for clear-cut, simple cases like this.

Anyway, so far, everyone who's voted oppose the SB/EF distinction, so unless a bunch of people suddenly barge in and tilt the balance in the other option's favor, I will fix the articles soon and get the merge for these articles done properly. One of those people were me and Lady. And the reason we had been telling you had nothing to do with this "EF/SB" situation. The reason was there should not be any "Original" and "Cursed". See Sheriff of Nottingham for example. The name "Sheriff of Nottingham" is written above, and below that, there is written "Original" and "Cursed". That is not the format we agreed.