Thread:Undoniel/@comment-3406131-20170302214506/@comment-3406131-20170307194005

As I said, when I was just an user and not an editor (that was years ago), that didn't confused me that much (or at all).

And it would not cast in stone the confusing part you're mentioning because it isn't related. I will use my example again: I create the James Smith (Earth-616) who is unique in Multiverse, I will not create the James Smith redirect (because it is useless). And the said link I want to appear on other pages (where it is needed or at least relevant) won't here, because if I don't create the useless redirect (and delete it if someone creates it), there won't be any "confusing" link, because what I'm proposing from the beginning is -like it did before- is to have a link appear only if the (disambiguation) page exist: No (useless) redirect page created, no link, no confusion.

(my proposal would even decrease the confusion, because it would establish -what was already logical before- that redirect must be created only if needed, as it was before, and if no other version exist, no redirect is needed, so no link appear)

The point you're mentioning is right: useless redirect should be changed or deleted, but policy or template evolution (or in this case restoration) shouldn't be stopped by those. If we can locate the useless redirects, we could run a bot on them or delete them manually.

For the title, we would have the exact same inconsistency problem because people have created title field where they have added links as well.

And the matter is not about the redundancy or distraction you're mentioning (still no distraction from my perception), it's about having the relevant link if one does exist (a relevant link) in order to ease navigation.