Brion Vibber wrote:
Timwi wrote:
It just makes it a lot harder to deal with such pages: if you HTTP-redirect straight to the target page you're missing the link back to the redirect page. (And that is *crucial* for editing work and vandalism cleanup. It is non-negotiable.)
I feel I should point out an implicit fallacy in this. It is non-negotiable that we need a link to the redirect page. It is *not* non-negotiable that we can't return a 301 HTTP redirection.
The only fallacy is yours, you invented some claim that I said 301s can't be used. This is false; if you had read my message you'd have seen that my point was using a 301 would require sending additional parameters to avoid making redirect cleanup work hugely annoying, and this would destroy any benefit that would allegedly come from using an HTTP redirect to the direct target URL (since you can't do it, you'd have to use a different URL).
We're already using two different URLs to display REDIRECT pages.
Using the redirect : .../wiki/The_Redirect shows the page The_Redirect redirects to.
Showing the redirect: .../w/index.php?title=The_Redirect&redirect=no shows the page containing the redirect.
Not that I have a strong opinion about using 301s, but couldn't we just turn the former link "style" into 301 and the latter not?
Magnus