Yes they should.

quistnix wrote:

No they should not. Look at oc.wikipedia. Someone has moved loads of
articles into category namespace. Should the software allow that? My
guess: no.

robchur wrote:

A redirect is a redirect. Just because some projects prefer to avoid them,
doesn't mean we should blanket disable/prevent them.

quistnix wrote:

In that case, double redirects are
redirects as well.

quistnix wrote:

You are saying following is "normal":
[[X]] is a redirect to [[User talk:Y]]
[[A]] is a redirect to [[Category:B]]
[[Talk:blah]] is a redirect to
[[Template:Yup]]

nice feature!

Closing bug. It's a feature.

People do in fact use these. They are a useful part of the system, for instance when old list
pages are converted to use new features (categories, templates etc), for compatibility when
namespace names are changed, to make shortcuts, etc.

This "request" will never be implemented because it requests the removal of a useful system and
offers nothing in return.

quistnix wrote:

The software offers lots of ways to solve redirects that are created by
moving items to different namespaces. Like double redirects, the created
redirects should do not have to be functional. You are missing the point
because you only see what you want to see.

quistnix wrote:

So it is true what people say about the developers: a bunch of arrogant
people, just doing the things they like?

Anton, let me note a few things:

• You have not provided any reason or justification for your desire to make

redirects fail.

• We have pointed out several scenarios in which they are useful.
• We have explained that we will keep the software functional because it is

useful and there is no reason to break it.

• You have responded with ad-hominem attacks.

quistnix wrote:

First of all: I am sorry for what I said - something happened on nl-
wiki today that made me very sad.

But you refuse to listen to my points:

• it is undesired that articles can redirect to other namespaces, like

categories or user talk pages.

• the solution that was made to handle double redirects is excellent:

they can easily be traced, even if they don't function.

• It seems I was talking against a wall. You responded exactly the way

many users say you developers (as a group) do. What I said was the
general opinion about you, and it is hard for me to defend your actions
if you respond this way.

Anton, thanks for your comments. However, you have not provided any points to
listen to yet. In response to your bullets:

• It is in fact desired that this can be done! This is very frequently used,

and we have pointed out above some scenarios in which it is used.

In contrast, you have provided absolutely no explanation of why it is
"undesired". You have provided no example of a situation in which it would be
undesirable or reasons why. You have asked us to harm functionality that other
people use for no reason.

• That's a quick hack to prevent looping and long, hard-to-maintain chains. The

interface is poor, and it would be a bad model to work from.

• I find it very strange that you would call us "arrogant" for doing what users

want us to do (make the software work consistently and clearly, in a way that
people frequently use it). We would receive a large number of complaints if we
implemented your suggestion, ignoring the actual use of this feature by
hundreds, perhaps thousands of other users. There are already multiple bug
reports (now closed, since we have fixed these cases) for the more obscure
cases such as redirecting to category and image pages (which are in fact used,
as reminded above).

If you really wanted us to implement this, you would need to provide some
explanation of why we should ignore all of our users except for you. I would be
very surprised if there is a good reason for this, but perhaps it could be
possible. However, you have not made any attempt to do this so far; you have
simply asserted over and over that something that many other users find a
useful and productive feature is "undesired".

You may toss around claims of "arrogance" if you wish, but please do not direct
them toward us.

quistnix wrote:

First: I was not calling you arrogant, I was just giving you the view
of many users I have seen. Didn't you notice the question mark? In
case you haven't noticed: the developers have an "image problem": users
have the feeling they are not listening. This can be true, or not, that
doesn't matter since it is a widespread feeling.

The response I got to my not very well formulated question was not very
constructive, and, as I explained, a few things happened at
nl.wikipedia at the time that made me a bit more emotional than normal.

Now for the cross-namespace redirects:
I still see no good use for functional cross-namespace redirects: if a
page needs one, it is for one of the following reasons:
*the page is not suitable for the namespace it is in; solution: move
the page or delete it;
*the namespaces are not suitable for the page: this is a fault in the
namespace design of the wiki.

In my opinion, cross-namespace redirects are for temporary use only, in
most cases when a new namespace is created. Like double redirects, that
are by definition undesired, there should be a mechanism that doesn't
make cross-namespace redirect work like a normal redirect.

Ok, in this case I think you just misunderstand what redirects are for.
Fundamentally, redirects allow a given wiki link or URL to *permanently* continue
to reach a resource which was previously at that location and has been moved.

If a page should be moved to another namespace because that's more appropriate for
it, that is *exactly* one of the primary situations in which a redirect is
appropriate.