On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 02:58:09PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
I, too, think it would be nice to make it as
difficult as possible to
bookmark a URL that's the *source* of a redirect, but...
That's really true only if the "source" is "wrong". It turns
out
it's not always wrong, which is yet another reason I think the
current setup is the right compromise. (That is, we'll just have
to find other ways to stamp out the "bad" links that result when
people bookmark or otherwise use a truly "wrong" URL that we're
actively trying to deprecate.)
Redirects are much more malleable, in my perception, than pages, and
that's why I feel that bookmarking them is Not The Best Idea.
In many (perhaps most) of the current cases, redirects
are used
to create "aliases" for pages, and there really oughtn't be any
stigma attached to linking to such an alias, if that makes more
sense. For example, if I know that [[Los Angeles]] redirects
to [[Los Angeles, California]], and if I'm writing in a context
where it's unnecessary to remind my readers of the state, should
I slavishly write [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]], or
should I rely on the redirect and just write [[Los Angeles]]?
That's an excellent question. How 'reliable' do you want your writing
to be. When you find a redlink for which there "really" is a page,
what do you do? Do you fix the link, or create a redirect?
Truly, one of the reasons these "alias"
redirects exist is to
make it easier on people creating wikilinks in naturally-flowing
prose without having to use pipelinks all the time, so why not
make use of them when they're there?
There's an argument on both sides, certainly.
I've recently come across two other cases in which
I think it
makes sense to deliberately link to a redirect.
1. Questionably-robust redirect partitioning. Suppose I need to
link to the article about Vancouver, BC. It happens that,
currently, plain [[Vancouver]] is about the Canadian city,
and the U.S. city is at [[Vancouver, Washington]], and
there's a disambiguation page at [[Vancouver (disambiguation)]],
and [[Vancouver, BC]] redirects to [[Vancouver]]. So I could
get away with just linking to [[Vancouver]].
But the Vancouver situation is (to me, at least) different
from the Los Angeles one. There is and is only ever likely
to be one Los Angeles, but the Vancouver situation feels
much less absolute. I can imagine that, some ways down the
line, someone might change plain [[Vancouver]] to be the
disambiguation page. So I'd like to explicitly link to
[[Vancouver, BC]], even if it means using the pipelink
[[Vancouver, BC|Vancouver]], and even though it means
linking to something which I know today to be a redirect.
But, in this case, being explicit feels much more robust
to me, doesn't leave me feel like I'm relying on today's
coincidence (i.e. that plain [[Vancouver]] happens to be
the one I want) to last forever.
So our disagreement is a difference in degree, not of sorts. Got it.
2. Clarifying "antiredirects". Just this
morning, I was reading
up about countable versus uncountable nouns. I tried
[[Countable]], which redirects to [[Countable set]]. It turns
out we do have [[Countable noun]], which is a redirect to
[[Count noun]], which is another term some people use for what
I think of as a "countable noun". But to make it easier on
the next reader who happened to be interested in linguistic as
opposed to mathematical countability, I edited [[Countable set]]
to add
"Countable" redirects here. For the linguistic concept,
see Countable noun.
at the top. Almost immediately someone changed it to
...For the linguistic concept, see Count noun.
noting that [[Countable noun]] is a redirect. But I think
showing the link as [[Countable noun]] was (mildly) preferable
in this case, because it explicitly shows the same word which
the searcher who got redirected from [[Countable]] is looking for.
It doesn't make too much of a difference in this case, but if
the terms were more different -- if the searcher looked for
[[Abc]] and got redirected to [[Abc d]] and was told that there
was also an article on [[Xyz]], he might not realize that the
[[Xyz]] link was worth following if what he thought he was
looking for was [[Abc q]].
Well, if those "blah redirects here" things are *manual*, then there's
another good reason: they're *wrong* if you came in to a page with
multiple redirects pointing to it.
(Actually, I don't need to use that
hypothetical Abc/q
example, because I've got a real one right in front of me:
at the same time I was playing with [[Countable set]], I also
edited [[Uncountable set]] to include the similar legend
"'Uncountable' redirects here. For the linguistic concept,
see Uncountable noun". Now, [[Uncountable noun]] is actually
a redirect to [[Mass noun]], but if the same change were made
here -- if the legend said "For the linguistic concept, see
Mass noun" -- it might be confusing.)
Which I think is another way to say the same thing.
The bottom line is if there's less reason to
discourage linking
to "wrong" titles (as I maintain), there's less reason to worry
about showing the "wrong" URL in the address bar of a
redirected-to page.
My perception is that the writers on a page assume it's called what
it's really called, and that assumption may color what they write, in
the way you suggest, and possibly in other ways that aren't obvious,
both on WP and on private wikis... and the results of those problems
may confuse *readers*, which is a couple/three order of magnitude worse
problem... right?
[P.S. Personally, I think it would be good if
articles could have
alternate titles or "aliases" as a formally-supported concept, so
that we could do away with the hordes of manually-maintained
explicit redirects which simulate them, but that would admittedly
be much more complicated on the implementation side, if "more
convenient" on the user side.]
By which you mean that the article "could tell" that it had such and
such aliases, in a way that it can't now?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
The Internet: We paved paradise, and put up a snarking lot.