https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378
--- Comment #19 from Quiddity <[email protected]> --- There are 3 separate issues here: (In reply to xmlizer from comment #0) > And in X -> Y(r) -> Z(r) -> {T}, the link in X to Y should be a red link > because the last {T} doesn't exists 1) Double redirects. We don't do these at all, and processes exist to automatically fix them. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Double_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DoubleRedirects [Definite WONTFIX. But not seriously considered except in Comment #0.] 2) Whether we're *allowed* to create/keep Redirects to non-existent targets. At the surface this is guideline/policy issue. However, one major aspect preventing their acceptance is the confusion that would arise if one of these Redirects was linked within an article. It would look blue, but lead nowhere. Hence: 3) Whether links to Redirects to currently-non-existent targets can technically be colored red. I.e. X -> Y(r) -> {T}, where {T} doesn't exist, the link in X to Y could be a red link. This would be quite useful, as Michael Hardy explains best in Comment #7. They're currently (on Enwiki) speedily-deleted per [[WP:CSD#G8]] (criteria for speedy deletion - General issue #8), specifically: "redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets". So, the question is: * MediaWiki: Is there another (cheaper) method of checking if a redirect targets an existing page? E.g. Could editors add a template to the redirect, specifying that it's a {pre-emptive redirect}, and thus incoming links should be marked red (until that template is removed)? Or something else? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
