Uuuuuuuuugh, it’s so annoying though. If it weren’t for threads being renamed I’d say it was a small thing for us to put the full names in, but given that it makes it basically impossible to link to dynamic threads it seems like quite a bad bug (any word on why removing the title stopped working? this never used to be a bug at all…).
We keep losing the historical data of how many clicks a link has had too 
That was apparently never officially supported, but I’m pretty sure they did fix it in the end. I just wanted to avoid them by putting the /x just to be safe. This new one though is so bad…
If I don’t hear back from them within a week about a workaround, do you think I should put the full URLs? It should work pretty well for all the home threads (but not the different level threads since they get renamed so often). It would just create so much noise in the post when editing…
I know, but at least it seemed to work!
I guess it’s better to have things working than not wherever possible, so personally I would probably update them - but the inconsistency of some being one way and some another isn’t great D:
Yeah, so when seanblue enlightened me about the new format I tried to apply it everywhere. (Apologies if I forgot some places!)
That was the side-effect of my updates, sorry! I thought it’s more acceptable to lose the history than to have an unsupported link format though…
Oops, just saw this - don’t worry, I wasn’t complaining about your changes, just the existence of the bug which makes them necessary 
This link above didn’t work. This link below worked.
Should I change this link by myself since it’s a wiki anyway even though I’m not reading this yet?
edit: ok, I’ve just edited it. Not sure if I did it right cmiiw.
If by “didn’t work”, you mean you opened it up in a new tab on Chrome and weird things happened, then yeah I know. Discourse just fixed this bug supposedly, so hopefully within the next week those links will work again.
Heh. Honto da. I just tested opening it on Firefox and it worked!
@Naphthalene I was thinking about this when I added 獣の奏者, but after your comment in another thread I figured I’d get a second opinion. Do you think I should split the miscellaneous section into a section for scheduled and non-scheduled books? Or perhaps I should put the scheduled books with their intended difficulty groups and just mention that they weren’t selected from voting? (獣の奏者 to intermediate, Re:Zero to a new advanced section)
What do you think?
Hm, I don’t think the problem ever came up before, and it isn’t a big problem anyway.
But yes, if it’s not too much, splitting the misc section in two would make sense, with an additional tag for difficulty (or pages/week ?) for the scheduled ones.
I don’t know how to do it, but there must be a way of getting this amazing chart into the OP!
It was created by that genius @ChristopherFritz and he has given permission for it to be used here if people want to!
@Naphthalene Okay, I split it in two and mentioned the difficulty. Let me know if I missed anything or messed anything up.
@marcusp The chart is cool and all, but I don’t think it adds enough value to be included in the OP. Plus, updating it all the time would add unnecessary work.
Yes, fair enough! And good point about updating it all the time! 
Technically 機動戦士ガンダムアグレッサー (Gundam Aggressor) has a schedule (1 page per day), I don’t know if it counts or if only clubs with separate threads per section should be considered scheduled.
Thank you, yes, one page per day, for 184 days, starting January 1st!
@marcusp Which section do you think it belongs in? The other two I moved to the scheduled section will have new threads every week to discuss a new section.
Scheduled, I guess. I mean, I really don’t mind which section it goes in, but it definitely has a schedule! (At least one that I’ll be sticking to!)
Alright, feel free to move it if you want. If you decide to, put it first so the list is in order of difficulty. 
Okay!
By the way, I understand about the problem of updating the image, but I think if the OP just links to the Google doc, that might be very useful and won’t need updating. What do you think? Of course it’s up to you, I just thought it was a really useful thing to see.
I think it’s probably better not to since it’s separately managed and could get out of date.