Titan Network

More Titan Projects => ParagonWiki => Formatting and Standardization => Topic started by: Zombie Man on January 13, 2011, 01:00:26 AM

Title: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Zombie Man on January 13, 2011, 01:00:26 AM
According to Wiki policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken

Linking to a redirect is generally OK. When I'm editing I put the brackets around words I assume is an article, and if preview shows that it makes a link, I leave it be.

Aggelakis has been combing through the articles changing linked redirects to the direct link with the admonition, "Don't link to redirects."

Is there consensus that on ParagonWiki linking to redirects is somehow wrong?
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 13, 2011, 01:05:50 AM
Paragon Wiki's policy on double- (or further orders) redirects differs from Wikipedia's. There should never be any article that links to a redirect.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 13, 2011, 01:26:12 AM
Though it doesn't appear to have been captured in our Article Guidelines (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Article_Guidelines), the consensus at Paragon Wiki has always been to avoid linking to redirects whenever possible.

I can only think of two times I've absolutely had to link to a redirect because there just wasn't any cleaner way to work something, but those were template related and I think those were resolved over time.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 13, 2011, 03:12:16 AM
I don't recall us ever forming a consensus on the matter? I really don't see what the point is in avoiding redirects with such vigor.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 13, 2011, 03:25:04 AM
I'm pretty sure that correcting links to avoid redirects predates my admin status on the Wiki, so I couldn't actually tell you how long we've been doing that.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Aggelakis on January 13, 2011, 05:29:01 AM
I was corrected long before my admin status to not link to redirects (via a following edit comment, fixing my redirect-link, that I can no longer find -- not surprisingly). I have, since then (prior to my admin status), fixed others' usage of redirect linking. This means over two years (admin in Feb '09) where I have personally actively unlinked redirects that I've found.

Don't put emotion into text. It's not an "admonition" (a loaded word).
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 13, 2011, 08:00:32 AM
There's nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. The link Zombie Man posted from Wikipedia gives good reasons why we don't need to change them, and I don't see how they fail to apply here.

I've noticed Agge "correcting" them off and on over the past few years and never said anything because I didn't think it wasn't a big enough issue to raise in and of itself. But since it has been raised... Honestly, it seems like a waste of time and effort. Redirects aren't broken, so why are we "fixing" them?

Clearly we've never actually sought consensus on the matter in the past, so now seems like a good time.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 13, 2011, 02:02:56 PM
How about this:

1)  Try to avoid redirects when creating a new link.  We're not saying you can't link to a redirect, but linking to the final destination is just ... I don't know, cleaner?

2)  If you do end up linking to a redirect, it's not a big deal.

3)  It's also not a big deal if someone else comes along later and changes the link to circumvent the redirect.

4)  Just don't intentionally change an existing, working link in an article to link to a redirect instead.  (I can't think of any time this has ever been done, and don't anticipate it actually being an issue, but I'm just covering the possibility here.)
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 13, 2011, 03:46:03 PM
1)  Try to avoid redirects when creating a new link.  We're not saying you can't link to a redirect, but linking to the final destination is just ... I don't know, cleaner?

I don't see how it's cleaner. Sometimes, it's more awkward. A lot of articles have titles that don't always fit smoothly within the flow of normal article text. The redirects, however, do. Whenever we use a piped link (like [[Nimble Mynx Badge|Nimble Mynx]]), I'd argue it'd be cleaner to just use the redirect (like [[Nimble Mynx]]).

Unfortunately, what often happens instead of either of the above is that we put the full article title in ([[Nimble Mynx Badge]]), even if it worsens the article text with unnecessary verbosity. Article text shouldn't suffer just so we can avoid redirects.

Redirects are a built-in feature of the wiki software and part of the point is that they make wiki-linking easier. If I go through and wiki-link a bunch of text in an article, I'll preview to make sure they're all valid links, but I'm not interested in then checking each and every one and making sure they're going to directly to their final destination. The links will still take you to the same place. What have we actually gained? Nothing.

"Cleaner" seems like a false aesthetic to me and certainly doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid a powerful built-in feature of the wiki. I am strongly opposed to discouraging redirects. Quite the opposite: I think we should discourage people from wasting their time "fixing" something that is already working properly.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 13, 2011, 05:23:16 PM
I don't see how it's cleaner. Sometimes, it's more awkward. A lot of articles have titles that don't always fit smoothly within the flow of normal article text. The redirects, however, do. Whenever we use a piped link (like [[Nimble Mynx Badge|Nimble Mynx]]), I'd argue it'd be cleaner to just use the redirect (like [[Nimble Mynx]]).

I guess it's a matter of preference there.  Honestly, [[Nimble Mynx Badge|Nimble Mynx]] does feel cleaner to me if only because when I'm editing I can see exactly where I'm going to end up.

I will grant that most users (e.g. people who only come in looking for articles, never edit, don't patrol other people's edits) probably won't notice any difference between linking directly to an article or a redirect.

Personally, if I'm taking my time, I do check every link I add to make sure I'm not redirecting.  If I go back later and find that I linked a redirect, I feel like I've failed to properly review my changes prior to committing.  

(Note the emphasis on the first word in the paragraph above.)

Quote
"Cleaner" seems like a false aesthetic to me and certainly doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid a powerful built-in feature of the wiki. I am strongly opposed to discouraging redirects.

Actually, my emphasis was not so much intended to be discouraging the use of redirects as encouraging direct linking.

Quote
Quite the opposite: I think we should discourage people from wasting their time "fixing" something that is already working properly.

And, left to the individual editor, whether or not you feel that making a change from a redirect to a direct link is a waste of time is personal preference - unless you accidentally break the link when you make your edit.  If I think it's going to be a waste of my time to edit something, I just won't edit it.  But I won't require someone else to go in and change from a redirect to a direct link after they've committed an edit, either.  If it really bugs me, I'll just change it myself.

Related example:  I've often changed links for [[BadgeName Badge|BadgeName]] to {{BadgeLink|BadgeName}} to make copy/pasting across common badge articles easier.  Did I actually change anything from the perspective of the end user?  Nope.  Did I make my life easier?  Definitely.  So, did I "fix" anything?  Not really.  Was it a waste of time?  Definitely not.

In the case of the badge articles, I hate having to create redirects for each badge.  I would personally feel that doing so would be a waste of my time.  Obviously, others do not feel that this is true in their own particular cases.  But when I'm linking to a new badge article, my preference is to make certain that I link directly because I don't know if the redirect already exists and I don't particularly care to have to create it if it doesn't.

The single most useful purpose I've found for redirects is as an aid in searching.  If someone searches for Statesman TF, they are taken directly to Statesman's Task Force.  That's what I personally use redirects for, not for linking from other articles.

So, to recap:  I don't like using redirects when I link, but I don't care if other people do.  I also don't care if someone else comes in behind me and changes something I linked from redirect to a direct link (this happens often enough when an article later gets moved/renamed) - unless they're now linking to the wrong article or something.

Do I circumvent redirects when I find them as I edit articles?  Yes.  But I don't fault anyone for putting those redirects in there to begin with.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 13, 2011, 05:47:29 PM
There seems to be a debate as to whether it's... um... I'd like to say "worthwhile" to replace links to redirects with links to the target articles, but... it almost seems like it's not allowed. I don't see anything encouraging linking to redirects; just discouraging changing links to redirects to links to the target articles.

Is there anything inherently wrong with removing links to redirects? Just a waste of time, right? How about I periodically run a bot on the wiki to recode redirect links for consistency, correctness and ambiguity reasons? No objections, yea?.. or are there?

This is quite an interesting psychological experiment. I also like how the thread title preemptively changed itself. By all means, continue discussion!
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Zombie Man on January 13, 2011, 10:42:31 PM
I was corrected long before my admin status to not link to redirects (via a following edit comment, fixing my redirect-link, that I can no longer find -- not surprisingly). I have, since then (prior to my admin status), fixed others' usage of redirect linking. This means over two years (admin in Feb '09) where I have personally actively unlinked redirects that I've found.

Don't put emotion into text. It's not an "admonition" (a loaded word).

To me, 'admonition' was the most neutral, non-emotional word to describe the phrase "do not link to redirects". It's an imperative to not do something, a warning, which is what "admonition" means.

An emotionally charged word would have been "chastisement".

Is this a rule that editors should be abiding? Should they check their edits to make sure their links are not redirects and correct them themselves all the time?
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Fleeting Whisper on January 14, 2011, 04:40:13 AM
My only opinion on the subject is against multi-redirects (Redirects linking to another redirect). :P
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Aggelakis on January 14, 2011, 06:16:00 AM
I think linking to the correct articles is cleaner. I will continue to fix redirect-links that I find. I don't care what other people do and don't care if the consensus is "linking to redirects is OK". :) It's a waste of time? Wasting time is literally all that Paragon Wiki is about, anyway. :p

Redirects are primarily for searching. Linking within an article is a side-effect.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 14, 2011, 04:29:57 PM
Redirects are primarily for searching. Linking within an article is a side-effect.

It's unclear whether you're saying this within the context of how you believe ParagonWiki should work or if you're saying it more generally to refer to the intent of the feature within the Mediawiki software itself.

The Mediawiki software was created first and foremost for Wikipedia and its needs guided what features went in and how they were implemented, especially during the earlier days when Mediawiki hadn't spread as far beyond the Wikipedia project. Wikipedia very clearly sees linking within an article as a first-class feature and not a side-effect. Thus, with respect to the Mediawiki software, I do not believe one can argue that linking is a side-effect.


It seems fairly clear we're not going to get the result I want (discourage avoiding redirects). :( So let me propose this as a consensus:

An editor may link to articles however they wish. An editor may modify existing links however they wish. However, any such changes should not reduce the readability of the article by end-users. In the case of an edit-war between pro-redirect and pro-direct factions, the direct link to an article wins. :P
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 14, 2011, 04:46:47 PM
An editor may link to articles however they wish. An editor may modify existing links however they wish. However, any such changes should not reduce the readability of the article by end-users. In the case of an edit-war between pro-redirect and pro-direct factions, the direct link to an article wins.

Works for me.

If we are all in agreement that this is acceptable, I'll add it to the existing policies.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 14, 2011, 06:45:43 PM
It seems fairly clear we're not going to get the result I want (discourage avoiding redirects). :(

You mean this really IS the case? I don't understand this position.

Guy A: Oh, I see that a redirect exists to take me to the proper location, so I'll just link to that location directly instead of the redirect.

Guy B: NO, YOU CAN'T! YOU MUST LINK TO THE REDIRECT!!!11

I mean, really, where do you draw the line? Should editors check to make sure a redirect points to a given article to ensure they link to a redirect??
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Aggelakis on January 14, 2011, 08:32:55 PM
It's unclear whether you're saying this within the context of how you believe ParagonWiki should work or if you're saying it more generally to refer to the intent of the feature within the Mediawiki software itself.

The Mediawiki software was created first and foremost for Wikipedia and its needs guided what features went in and how they were implemented, especially during the earlier days when Mediawiki hadn't spread as far beyond the Wikipedia project. Wikipedia very clearly sees linking within an article as a first-class feature and not a side-effect. Thus, with respect to the Mediawiki software, I do not believe one can argue that linking is a side-effect.
I'm saying this is the way Paragon Wiki has been operating since I started seriously editing. We add tons of redirects -often to directly facilitate searching (evidenced by several threads on the official forums where people complain that it's hard to get "X" out of Paragon Wiki and I ask them to list what they attempted to use for search terms, and proceeded to add those in as redirects - sometimes this happens on PW talk pages as well.)

Paragon Wiki != Wikipedia. Here at PW, it really is a side-effect. The vast majority of linking on PW is not to redirects, but (sometimes piped) links to direct articles.




Quote
It seems fairly clear we're not going to get the result I want (discourage avoiding redirects). :( So let me propose this as a consensus:

An editor may link to articles however they wish. An editor may modify existing links however they wish. However, any such changes should not reduce the readability of the article by end-users. In the case of an edit-war between pro-redirect and pro-direct factions, the direct link to an article wins. :P
This works for me. It's how I've been operating anyway.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 14, 2011, 08:43:33 PM
You mean this really IS the case? I don't understand this position.

Guy A: Oh, I see that a redirect exists to take me to the proper location, so I'll just link to that location directly instead of the redirect.

Guy B: NO, YOU CAN'T! YOU MUST LINK TO THE REDIRECT!!!11

I mean, really, where do you draw the line? Should editors check to make sure a redirect points to a given article to ensure they link to a redirect??
I think you're misunderstanding my position. Smiley I'm content with the proposed consensus, but since Guy asked, I'll try to explain by way of some examples. It's a longish explanation, so feel free to skip if you're not interested because it has no bearing on the seeking of consensus.

Over the course of time, articles for inf have evolved on the wiki as such:

    * Separate articles for "Influence" and "Infamy" existed. "Inf" was a disambig (or possibly a definition) article.
    * The two articles merged into "Influence and Infamy". "Influence", "Infamy", and "Inf" all redirected to it.
    * The article was renamed to "Inf". "Influence", "Infamy", "Information" and "Influence and Infamy" all redirected to it

.
Now, suppose that at some random point in the wiki's history, I decided I wanted to include this line in an article:

     This piece of salvage can be sold to a vendor for 1000 influence.

I might then wiki link it as follows:

     This piece of [[salvage]] can be sold to a [[vendor]] for 1000 [[influence]].

Then when I hit preview, I'd see that "salvage" and "influence" were valid links and "vendor" probably wasn't (or who knows, maybe it is? but let's assume it's not).

Depending on how ambitious I felt, I might try to find a more appropriate link for vendor, or I might just unlink it. Or I might leave it as a redlink in hopes that the article will appear later. All three choices are valid. I don't think we should obsessively avoid or eliminate redlinks for the sake of avoiding redlinks, though I also don't think we should create them willy-nilly either. This is another topic entirely and not one I care to provoke discussion over, but it ties into my fundamental point (further below).

"Salvage", meanwhile, is clearly a general term and likely leads to a disambiguation article. I might realize that at the time and go find a more specific article to link to, changing the line to perhaps the following:

     This piece of [[Base Salvage]] can be sold to a vendor for 1000 [[influence]].

Then again, maybe I won't realize that and the article will end up pointing to "salvage". Is that really a big deal though? I encounter this all the time on wikipedia and it's rarely an issue. I skim through the disambig list and click on my merry way. If I have time, I'll even go back and fix the link to avoid the disambiguation so that future users can skip that step; but if I don't, someone else eventually will. For disambiguations, I do think the links should eventually get updated to point to the appropriate article, but I don't think it's a big deal for such links to exist. But as above, this is yet another topic entirely, I'm not looking to start a discussion on it, but it does tie into my fundamental point (again, further below).

"Influence", on the other hand, is a very concrete topic. It's unlikely to be a disambiguation page. So I would probably leave that link in place. As it happens, it's a redirect to "Inf", which is absolutely fine. When you click on "influence" you get to the article you want. There's no need to change it.

Now, you could change it to "[[inf]]". But if I'm talking in a hero-specific context, I may well want to keep it as "Influence" because it's more specific. If "influence" is the better word, why change it to "inf" just to avoid a redirect? That's silly. (And admittedly, in this respect, this example is silly. I would probably change that to inf. It illustrates the point though.)

However, the history of inf gives a strong reason to not be anal about avoiding redirects. To avoid redirects, we would have had to update tons of articles twice in that series of changes: once to go from [[Influence]]/[[Infamy]] to [[Influence and Infamy]], then again to go to [[Inf]]. That's a lot of work and for what? So that the end user doesn't see a subtle redirect line under the article title?

If I simply link to [[influence]], I can be reasonably certain that the link will always work. When we moved [[Influence and Infamy]] to [[Inf]], we just had to update that one redirect and suddenly all those articles pointing to [[Influence]] are now up-to-date. That's elegant, simple, and clean.

I could also then go to the redirect page for Influence and click "What links here?" to see which articles are referring to the concept in terms of "Influence" as opposed to "Information" or "Infamy" or the generic "Inf". Unfortunately, since we're so averse to redirects, all of our links are either just [[inf]] or are something along the lines of [[inf|influence]]. So, we've cheated ourselves of a potential resource. (Not to mention that links like [[inf|influence]] are just plain absurd. "inf" and "influence" go to the same spot, it's absolutely silly and inelegant to pipe one over the other.)

Easy linking is one of the fundamental characteristics of a wiki. It's the major reason why they came into being. The point is that you should be able to write content and easily link to articles without having to worry about the specifics of linking. This is as opposed to using raw HTML hyperlink code each link, which requires: 1. you go find the proper URL in question and 2. you format it with the right HTML boilerplate. The wiki eliminates both of those factors. You don't need to go find the URL -- you just link the term and it works. In making the effort to avoid redirects, you're effectively undermining one of the fundamental premises of what a wiki is.

So, I'm not saying "If a redirect exists YOU MUST USE IT." That'd be just plain dumb. I'm saying that we shouldn't be discouraging people from using one of the wiki's keys features. We should encourage people to link terms, and if the link shows up as a valid link, don't worry about it any further.

I'm also saying that if an article happens to be linking to a redirect, we should just leave it be. There's nothing broken to fix. Fixing it is a waste of time and effort. Agge claims that all of ParagonWiki is a waste of time. I disagree. Most of the edits people make contribute something useful -- new content, clearer content, better formatting. That's not a waste. Avoiding redirects, however, is a waste, because it doesn't actually improve anything. I'd rather see that time spent on something that does yield an improvement. Or, failing that, I'd rather see that time spent off the wiki doing something else the person enjoys. Tongue


Like I said above, I am content with the proposed consensus. The above is meant to explain my stance since I was asked, not to argue with anyone. There's not really any "right" or "wrong" answers here, just opinions. I'm content to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. If you don't feel it's a waste, then I'm happy you feel productive. In the greater scope of things, it's really not that big of a deal. Carry on.



I butchered Sekoia's post with MODIFY instead of QUOTE, but managed to salvage it with the back button! yay firefox ---Agge
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Aggelakis on January 14, 2011, 08:52:32 PM
Agge claims that all of ParagonWiki is a waste of time.
Paragon Wiki is a pretendy-fun-times resource for a pretendy-fun-times game.

All games are a waste of time. That is what they are designed to do.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 14, 2011, 10:45:33 PM
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 15, 2011, 12:43:07 AM
Working from the understanding that redirects exist as placeholders for incorrect article titles,

You view them as "incorrect". I view them as "alternate". Our understandings are fundamentally different.

Conversely, are there benefits to linking to [[redirect title]] rather than [[target title|redirect title]]?

There are two that pop to mind. Neither are huge, major, important, must-have considerations, but they are still benefits.
.
The second point is by far the more important one. However, it's not so much that I'm arguing that redirects are better that direct links. It's more that I'm arguing that direct links aren't better than redirects.

This sounds perfectly reasonable outside the context of this conversation, but your stance is clearly that links to redirects should not be changed. I would lend more consideration to this sentiment, but for the life of me I can't find any reason one would discourage the activity like you have.

In my opinion, updating such links provides absolutely no benefit and diverts time and effort from tasks I might consider worthwhile to one that I absolutely don't. In that light, does my position make more sense as a consequence of my opinion?

And as I said, in the big scheme of things, it's not the most important of points. My fifteen-paragraph post was mostly to explain my linking philosophy, not persuade.

All games are a waste of time. That is what they are designed to do.

I disagree.  ;D

Games are a recreational activity designed to foster relaxation and social interaction.

ParagonWiki is a resource designed to help people enjoy a better experience within the context of a specific game (City of Heroes).

I do not consider any of the above a waste of time. Relaxation and social interaction are crucially important things to have included in one's life, in whatever form a person chooses to pursue them.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 15, 2011, 01:35:58 AM
You view them as "incorrect". I view them as "alternate". Our understandings are fundamentally different.

Like I mentioned before, I consider "alternate" to also be "incorrect." From a technical standpoint, there is one article with the content (the correct article name) and redirects to that article (the incorrect article names). No matter how you slice it, redirects draw the user away from whatever it was they typed and to what's correct as far as wiki content is concerned.

Under no circumstances is a redirect article name equally valid; else the content would be copied there rather than redirected to a different article.


Relaxation and social interaction are crucially important things to have included in one's life, in whatever form a person chooses to pursue them.

You don't find adjusting links to redirects to be relaxing? (-:
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 15, 2011, 01:58:51 AM
You don't find adjusting links to redirects to be relaxing? (-:

I had to laugh at that one.  I can't count the number of times I've cracked open the wiki to go through and make a bunch of relatively mindless edits in order to detangle my cortex so I can go back to making progress at work.  Relaxing indeed.  :)
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 15, 2011, 03:43:32 AM
Like I mentioned before, I consider "alternate" to also be "incorrect." From a technical standpoint, there is one article with the content (the correct article name) and redirects to that article (the incorrect article names). No matter how you slice it, redirects draw the user away from whatever it was they typed and to what's correct as far as wiki content is concerned.

Under no circumstances is a redirect article name equally valid; else the content would be copied there rather than redirected to a different article.

I still disagree, but don't feel like arguing the point since it doesn't really matter. :)

You don't find adjusting links to redirects to be relaxing? (-:

No. But I figured that others must've found it thus, which is why I hadn't made a point of complaining when I noticed the occasional large-scale redirect link purges various times in the past. ;)

Stop trying to pin me on a technicality!  ;D
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Zombie Man on January 15, 2011, 07:23:32 PM
I don't care if someone wants to edit link redirects to direct links. Just as long as the comment section isn't saying "don't link to a redirect" implying it's wrong to do so.

As far as the stance that one shouldn't link to redirects: That stance goes against one of the basic reasons for redirect: Inflected language.

If there is an article on "Tip", then we can write about [[Tip]]s, and the Wiki parser can handle that.

However, if there is an article on "Ability", then [[Ability]]s will come out wrong. Wiki purposefully uses the redirects so that Abilities is redirected to Ability allowing an editor to use [[Abilities]] with ease. Using [[Abilities|Ability]] is inordinately awkward and the redirect function exists so that editors don't have to do that.

The same being able to link to [[President Grant]] without having to type [[Ulysses S. Grant|President Grant]].

Redirects are *not* just a search tool. They're an editor's tool for writing. If the Wiki community didn't like linking to redirects the software could have easily auto-fixed all linked redirects, which it doesn't.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: TonyV on January 17, 2011, 03:03:49 PM
Wow, everyone, calm down.  Don't get so worked up over something that is, at best, a very minor nitpick.

Agge's not lying, I'm pretty sure that at some point in the past, I've publicly stated a preference for links such as [[Nimble Mynx Badge|Nimble Mynx]] over just [[Nimble Mynx]], and I can tell you with absolute certainty that that is how I always try to link to articles.  I prefer it that way because I don't like the little "Redirected from ..." line when you follow a link, and so that when you do follow a link, you'll get a very visible indicator of what we consider the "master" article.

Also, when people copy-and-paste the URL for articles out of the wiki in other places (such as the official forums), I preferred people going directly to the master article so that anyone who follows the external link wouldn't get the "Redirected from ..." line.

It was purely an aesthetic thing.  I never intended for it to mean that people can't link to redirects, just that I personally preferred for links to go to the original article.  I'd much rather have someone write or edit an article with links to redirects in it than to not write or edit an article at all.  Likewise, if an editor converts a link to a redirect to a link directly to the main article, don't take it personally.  You weren't wrong or anything, it's just to make navigation a little cleaner.  If you really don't want to bother with it and don't care one way about linking to redirects or not linking to redirects, by all means, do whatever makes you happy and efficient!
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 17, 2011, 04:41:33 PM
Based on our discussion in this thread, I have added a new section to the Paragon Wiki Article Guidelines.

Direct Links Vs. Redirects (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Article_Guidelines#Direct_Links_Vs._Redirects)

Everyone cool with this?
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: TonyV on January 17, 2011, 09:07:11 PM
Based on our discussion in this thread, I have added a new section to the Paragon Wiki Article Guidelines.

Direct Links Vs. Redirects (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Article_Guidelines#Direct_Links_Vs._Redirects)

Everyone cool with this?

My god, it's full of stars!
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: taosin on January 18, 2011, 04:44:04 AM
[...]
Direct Links Vs. Redirects (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Article_Guidelines#Direct_Links_Vs._Redirects)

Everyone cool with this?

Very nice work! Useful, clear, and nicely toned.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Zombie Man on January 18, 2011, 05:39:02 AM
Groovy.
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: GuyPerfect on January 24, 2011, 01:28:31 AM
Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: eabrace on January 24, 2011, 01:42:32 AM
Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]

Goofball.  :D
Title: Re: Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK
Post by: Sekoia on January 24, 2011, 03:02:16 AM
Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]

LOL. You're so thoughtful. :)