User talk:Starfield/Redirect linking

My IMHO arguments against:

1. Better performance for direct links, since it's less steps on the server.
2. Fewer link changes to worry about if either the redirect or the destination page is moved, deleted, or renamed.
3. Direct links provide more precise information.

--Jeysie 14:36, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

1. I didn't know about this one.
2. There are actually fewer link changes to worry about if the destination page is moved. You just update one redirect page and it takes care of all the links that link to the redirect.
3. I think it provides less precise information. The link text says one thing "Rodimus Prime (G1)" but it takes you somewhere else, "Hot Rod (G1)". If you link to a redirect page, when you link to "Rodimus Prime (G1)", it takes you to Rodimus Prime (G1)'s page, which you are informed when you get there, has been redirected to "Hot Rod (G1)". When I mouse-hover over a link and the bubble says something different than the text, I can't help but feeling that someone is being sneaky with me. Seriously, if they really are the same character why don't you just spell it out in the text? "Hot Rod got pissed and threw Galvatron right through Unicron's hull." Having the hover-text say "Hot Rod" is only going halfway. - Starfield 15:24, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

2. You run into problems of having to check if there's a redirect page linking the moved destination page that's being linked to itself, and there's also the possible problem of dealing with things like double redirects.

3. The fact that "Rodimus Prime" links to "Hot Rod" tells me instantly that they're the same thing in some way (or at least warns me that there's something odd going on here). And even if I don't trust the wiki to have internal links that point to the correct spot, two seconds of reading the intro will tell me what I need to know (and if it doesn't, someone needs to rewrite it).

Whereas, if I click a link to Rodimus Prime, I expect to go to a page called that... so the redirect is a little befuddling to me at first.

As for why we don't simply call him Hot Rod, I'll port over my thoughts on the matter from the other thread:

"Because it's the same character. We say 'Spike' or "Daniel", but link to their full name. If someone refers to Bumblebee as a 'giant yellow Volkswagon robot' in something, we might use that phrasing in the synopsis, but we'd still link to Bumblebee, not to 'giant yellow Volkswagon robot' as a redirect. Etc. It's not a fakeout, it's just using the proper contextual name in the text, but cutting out the middleman for the actual link."

I can turn this around and ask you: If Rodimus and Hot Rod aren't fundamentally the same character, why do we have them on the same article page? Do we need to have three separate pages for, say, Sentinel Prime, because he was "Sentinel Minor" and a drill instructor in "Autoboot Camp" and is now possibly going to be "Sentinel Magnus" and Supreme Commander in the last few episodes of the series? Or two redirects?

(Meh, I have a feeling that this is going to be one of those "arguing about something I don't actually care greatly about" moments again, but I'm a sucker for hashing out the logic of things...) --Jeysie 15:58, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

2 We already have the redirects and have to clean up after them. I hope you are not suggesting we delete Rodimus Prime (G1).

Not that we have to follow wikipedia, but they have a policy of Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. - Starfield 16:41, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

2. Yes, which is why taking steps to have less cleanup needed in the future is a good thing. And no, I'm not suggesting we delete that specific redirect, just pointing out why I don't think linking to a redirect is usually necessary or more correct, even in the case of characters with multiple names.

About the only time I'd consider linking to a redirect as more correct is when you have something like the G2 or Arrival comic issues, where you have two or more things on a page that actually are definitely separate, yet need to be grouped together due to the way we organize things. In which case it is more useful/correct to link to a redirect that goes to the specific section of said page being talked about, since the rest of the page is irrelevant. --Jeysie 17:41, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

IMHO: there are a lot of places where editing redirects to point to the correct article is correct. Is there any good reason why links to, say, Autobots or Vehicons or Drift shouldn't be corrected to go to the actual article? (And to illustrate why this might cause a problem: as I write this there are actually four Armada screenshots pointing to Drift instead of Drift (episode)...) --abates 19:38, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

You are right. There is a very limited scope of when linking to redirect pages is preferred. I don't think a blanket "it is OK to link to redirect pages" is a good idea. Unfortunately, I am having a hard time writing a concise policy statement. The opposite policy page is easy. "It is never preferable to link to a redirect page and you are doing the wiki a service if you fix those links."

I can give examples. "Beast mode" is an official Transformers term. It is a concept that could, hypothetically have its own article. But it just happens that "beast mode" is a sub-section of the "alternate mode" article with [[beast mode]] redirecting to [[alternate mode]]. Since "beast mode" could, theoretically, have its own article, I think it is permissible (and preferable) to link to [[beast mode]] and let the redirect take you to the right place instead of linking to [[alternate mode|beast mode]].

Since I can't explain it very well, and it would be hard to police anyway, I'm not going to worry about it anymore. If someone "fixes" my [[Goldbug (G1)|Goldbug]] I won't let it bother me. - Starfield 02:25, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, except that "beast mode" isn't a separate concept, either. It's still an alternate mode; it's just an alternate mode that's an animal instead of a vehicle or object.

But in any case, if it makes you feel better, I personally wouldn't bother "fixing" Goldbug/Rodimus links that already exist, it's more that I'd just probably tend to use the "real name" when creating my own links. --Jeysie 05:07, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

Goldbug's real name was Goldbug. - Starfield 13:31, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

*rolls eyes* --Jeysie 13:36, 9 May 2009 (EDT)