Consensus: Linking to Redirects is Generally OK

[GuyPerfect]

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.

To paraphrase Mr. Kenobi, "this is not the article you're looking for." A redirect is, by definition, a mechanism to forward a user from an incorrect article name to something that actually has the content that pertains to the name given. That is to say, when you type in something improper, it forwards you to the proper.

Some redirects are simply there because people will search for or link to article titles that are blatantly incorrect to begin with. "Recluse" is a good example of this; it's only a portion of the character's name and really would only be typed in if someone couldn't be bothered to type "Lord" due to laziness.

Sometimes, the redirect exists to forward the user from a perfectly-applicable article title (for what they're looking for) to the article that actually contains the content. This is the case with all the Badge articles. It's not that the article title was bad, per sé, but it is nonetheless incorrect because the article's true title is something else.

In practice, redirects are occasionally used to consolidate multiple alternative titles for the same article, such as your Inf example. In this case, the error is that Influence is excessively specific--a particular application of Inf--and the redirect drills up a layer, which differs from conventional redirect logic. Nonetheless, the content is in Inf, not Influence.

Working from the understanding that redirects exist as placeholders for incorrect article titles, it makes perfect sense to use [[target title|redirect title]] over [[redirect title]]; it's not silly or inelegant by any means. After all, [[redirect title]] is there for a reason: to send the user to [[target title]]. Simple cause-and-effect logic can follow to resolve that [[target title|redirect title]] is correct and preferred, whereas [[redirect title]] is incorrect and should not be used. The wiki, being about correctness, would not suffer from a waste of time for users to make this consideration.

Conversely, are there benefits to linking to [[redirect title]] rather than [[target title|redirect title]]? I don't think there are. I can't think of any myself, and I've never heard of anyone objecting to eliminating links to redirects, as if to say "Don't do that, we need those!"

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.

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.

[Sekoia]

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.

• "What links here?" If you use [[redirect title]] in some articles and [[target title]] in others, then the "What links here?" tool will give you a good sense for how many articles use each as their link. If you use [[redirect title|target title]], they all get consolidated into the same place and you have less sense for how the linking is occurring. (Yes, I can see how one could consider this as a disadvantage as well.)
  
• If "target title" moves to "new target", then "[[target title|redirect title]]" is now avoiding one redirect with a another redirect, both of which point to the same article. Redirects minimize the amount of link maintenance required. It's very easy to update the target of a redirect. It requires a lot more resources to go update all the links.

.
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.

[GuyPerfect]

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? (-:

[eabrace]

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.  :)

[Sekoia]

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

[Zombie Man]

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.

[TonyV]

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!

[eabrace]

Based on our discussion in this thread, I have added a new section to the Paragon Wiki Article Guidelines.

Direct Links Vs. Redirects

Everyone cool with this?

[TonyV]

Based on our discussion in this thread, I have added a new section to the Paragon Wiki Article Guidelines.

Direct Links Vs. Redirects

Everyone cool with this?

My god, it's full of stars!

[taosin]

[...]
Direct Links Vs. Redirects

Everyone cool with this?

Very nice work! Useful, clear, and nicely toned.

[Zombie Man]

Groovy.

[GuyPerfect]

Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]

[eabrace]

Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]

Goofball.  :D

[Sekoia]

Just for you, Sekoia, I put the following link in one of my user pages:

[[Cliche Badge|Cliche badge]]

LOL. You're so thoughtful. :)