This is anessay on inappropriate use ofnavigation popups and itspopupFixRedirs feature. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: It is discouraged to usepopupFixRedirs to 'fix'piped links that point to redirects by changing them to direct links as it anecdotally is more resource heavy on Wikimedia servers in the long-term. It is also discouraged byWikipedia:Don't worry about performance.

Some users of Navigation popups are makinginappropriate use of thepopupFixRedirs feature. Editors believe using this feature reduces the workload on Wikipedia servers, but in reality, it actuallyincreases the servers’ workload.

Say you come across a perfectly legitimate redirect link, for instance (morphosyntax redirects toMorphology (linguistics)):

The popupFixRedirs feature allows you to hover over themorphosyntactical link, clickRedirects, and change the text to:

(Note: Please don't try it on this page. Popups fixesevery case of a redirect where it finds it on a page, and so this essay will make no sense after you "fix" it.)

The new wikitext avoids the redirect and goes "straight" to the "right page", so it must be "better" on the Wikipedia servers, and you're performing a great service by "fixing" the "bad" link, right?

Unfortunately, probably not. Here's why:

• When a reader clicks on a redirected link (say,morphosyntax), theMediaWiki software performsSQL queries to locate the destination page. That query includes a check as to whether the requested destination is a redirect (every page includes a database field calledpage.page_is_redirect), and if so, it returns the location of theredirected page. In other words, while it's technically true that it's more expensive to follow a redirect than a direct link, it's only the tiniest hair more expensive. (For those who care, the actual number on a 2006 version of MediaWiki was 44SELECT statements to follow a direct link versus 48 to follow a redirect.)
• The editor's action of using Popups to fix a single redirect has MediaWiki do more SQL queries than it takes to follow the redirect, but it also has to do severaldatabase transactions and writes. (To be exact, 8 transactions with 64 SELECTs, 10 UPDATEs, 4 INSERTs, and 2 DELETEs, on that same version of MediaWiki.)
• Database updates – that is,write operations – are several orders of magnitude more expensive on the servers than database queries — that is,read operations. A benchmark ran in January 2006 showed that fixing a redirect is approximatelyten thousand times more expensive for the server than following that redirect.

In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link approximately 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link. In any case,Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance discourages Wikipedians from worrying about performance, so you shouldn't be trying to fix a redirect to reduce the load on the servers in the first place.

There is a final, perhaps more important, reasonnot to fix many redirects: The redirect page might be about another but related topic from the one redirected to, and someone might want to create the page in the future; such a page is aredirect with possibilities. When such a page is created, "fixed" redirects will point to an incorrect (or less precise) page.

• Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

• Wikipedia essays
• Wikipedia redirecting
• Wikipedia tools