On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:33, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:26 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> I think the ideal solution is to create a section for all the rename
> cases and do all the redirects to that page. The page would list the
> old and new name for each item, and would link to the section for each
> new item.
>
>
>
> Nothing prevents us from doing that for simple renames. For me, this
> situation is not a simple rename and the proposed solution is appropriate
> for what it is - changing the implementation details of an existing
> feature. We can do both - though the simple rename page doesn't seem
> particularly appealing at first glance.
>
>
> I for one do not like following a bookmark or link and then being redirected to
> a generic page that doesn't relate to the specific link I was following. What
> is being proposed here is not as bad as the usual, where all the old links
> simply turn into redirects to the homepage, but it's still disorienting. I
> would much rather each removed page be moved to an appendix (without renaming)
> and edited to briefly explain what happened to the page and provide links to
> the appropriate up-to-date page or pages.
Yes, that is pretty much the same thing I was suggesting, except that
each rename has its own _original_ URL link, which I think is also
acceptable. My desire is for these items to all exist in one place, and
an appendix of them seems fine.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
