Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Redirects and pipelinks on the wiki

On the xenharmonic wiki, there are a lot of temperaments that don't have their own articles yet, but are described along with a bunch of related temperaments in a single article about that temperament family. For example, to read about hedgehog you would go to "Porcupine family". This is fine and dandy; there are way too many named temperaments for each to get its own article, and it's better for related ones to be grouped together than for each to get a tiny stub of an article anyway.

However, I've noticed that when linking to a specific temperament, it's often done by a pipelink (i.e. a link with the text "hedgehog" that goes to "Porcupine family"). The trouble with this is that if somebody eventually does break out hedgehog into its own fleshed-out article (which I can easily imagine happening), then all those links ought to go to "Hedgehog" but they'll still go to "Porcupine family" until somebody changes all of them individual.

To avoid this future hassle, it seems to me we should avoid using pipelinks and use redirects instead. I've started making a redirect whenever I link to a temperament, but unfortunately on wikispaces I guess you have to be an admin to create a redirect (which seems crazy).

So if you have an issue with any redirect I've made, or have a big batch of redirects you want created, send me a message. But let's try to future-proof things sooner rather than later.

BTW, is there any way to redirect to a section anchor on wikispaces?

Keenan

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> To avoid this future hassle, it seems to me we should avoid using pipelinks and use redirects instead. I've started making a redirect whenever I link to a temperament, but unfortunately on wikispaces I guess you have to be an admin to create a redirect (which seems crazy).

I think you should explain how to do all this.

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
>
> > To avoid this future hassle, it seems to me we should avoid using pipelinks and use redirects instead. I've started making a redirect whenever I link to a temperament, but unfortunately on wikispaces I guess you have to be an admin to create a redirect (which seems crazy).
>
> I think you should explain how to do all this.

I figured out that the fast way to create a redirect is to go to

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/page/redirect/nameofpageyouwanttoredirect

and then just type in the page you want to be the target.

Keenan

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

I just noticed the tag "smart redirect" on the wiki where people are creating soft redirects (i.e. a page that just says "see otherpage", where you have to click the link to continue). I see two possibilities:

(1) Are people doing this just because they aren't organizers (admins), in which case I should convert any "smart redirect" I come across into a hard redirect to save all the extra clicks?

(2) Or is there some advantage to using these soft redirects, in which case I should convert all my hard redirects into "smart redirects", and we should avoid making hard redirects in the future?

BTW, I can't seem to find ANY sort of manual or user documentation for the Wikispaces software. The first Google hit is
http://www.bridge.edu.au/verve/_resources/BRIDGEWikiUserGuidev0.2pdf.pdf
but that doesn't even mention the words "redirect" or "organizer" so it definitely isn't the manual I'm looking for.

Is this really a wiki engine with no manual?

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> Is this really a wiki engine with no manual?

The Help link at the top wasn't inviting enough?

Go here

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/space/pagelist

and redirect away! -C.

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
>
> > Is this really a wiki engine with no manual?
>
> The Help link at the top wasn't inviting enough?
>
> Go here
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/space/pagelist
>
> and redirect away! -C.

I already know how to redirect pages. I described a faster way earlier in this thread, that I've been using since I got fed up with the way you describe.

Some of the things I want to look up in a manual are:

Can we make it so non-admins can create and edit redirects?

Can I redirect a page to a section anchor in another page?

I'll be embarrassed if the answers are available from the obvious "help" link, because I definitely looked there. That's why I was asking if there was an actual manual.

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> I already know how to redirect pages. I described a faster way
> earlier in this thread, that I've been using since I got fed up
> with the way you describe.

A thousand pardons.

> Some of the things I want to look up in a manual are:
> Can we make it so non-admins can create and edit redirects?

Obviously not.

> Can I redirect a page to a section anchor in another page?

I'm surprised the anchor is ignored in the redirect path.
Other than that I doubt there's a way to do it. This is
simple software for simple folk, hosted at no cost. And
having set up and run a MediaWiki for my team at Apple, I
can say I'm favorably impressed with it thus far.

Do let me know though if you find a way to sitewide-disable
the wysiwyg editor.

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > > Can I redirect a page to a section anchor in another page?
> >
> > I'm surprised the anchor is ignored in the redirect path.
>
> I do it all the time.

Really? Show an example.

I've only seen you make pipelinks, not redirects. It's obvious how to make a pipelink to an anchor; you just click where it says "Link to anchor?". I'm talking about redirects.

Keenan

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Hi there,

I just read the whole thread and pick the redirect things (see below)

Am 17.08.2011 20:09, schrieb Keenan Pepper:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith"<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@> wrote:
>>
>>>> Can I redirect a page to a section anchor in another page?
>>>
>>> I'm surprised the anchor is ignored in the redirect path.
>>
>> I do it all the time.
>
> Really? Show an example.
Is there one? Where?
>
> I've only seen you make pipelinks, not redirects. It's obvious how to make a pipelink to an anchor; you just click where it says "Link to anchor?". I'm talking about redirects.
What is a "pipelink" (hard to understand for a non-English speaker)

I added a section to the wiki help. I started with a few informations and thoughts only... Maybe this makes the future life somewhat easier.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/wiki+help#x-Using%20links-Redirects

Best,
Wolf

ps: the software is really poor in this range :(

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
> What is a "pipelink" (hard to understand for a non-English speaker)

That's a term from Wikipedia. It means using a pipe symbol "|" in the wiki code to make the link text say something different from the target of the link.

For example I could have [[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]] and that would really link to the "Porcupine family" page but the link would say "Hedgehog". (Actually I would want to have [[Porcupine family#Hedgehog|Hedgehog]] to link to the specific section.) This is what Gene's been doing, but I think it makes us prone to a lot of headaches later because eventually someone might want to write a whole article about hedgehog, in which case we'd have to go back and change ALL the links to it.

> I added a section to the wiki help. I started with a few informations
> and thoughts only... Maybe this makes the future life somewhat easier.
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/wiki+help#x-Using%20links-Redirects

I think we should all start using these smart redirects for everything, because the only disadvantage is that a reader needs to manually click through, and there are at least two important advantages of smart redirects:

* Non-admins can create and remove them (and the way to do so is obvious).
* A smart redirect can link to a specific section.

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Keenan Pepper wrote:

> I think we should all start using these smart redirects for
> everything, because the only disadvantage is that a reader
> needs to manually click through,

That is a serious disadvantage.

Why are you calling the Smart Redirects? They seem pretty
dumb to me.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

"Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> For example I could have [[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]] and
> that would really link to the "Porcupine family" page but
> the link would say "Hedgehog". (Actually I would want to
> have [[Porcupine family#Hedgehog|Hedgehog]] to link to the
> specific section.) This is what Gene's been doing, but
> I think it makes us prone to a lot of headaches later
> because eventually someone might want to write a whole
> article about hedgehog, in which case we'd have to go back
> and change ALL the links to it.

Or, the "see [[Hedgehog]]" link could just be placed at
Porcupine family#Hedgehog at that time, so the extra hop
is only introduced when it is needed.

-Carl

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Hi Carl,

Am 18.08.2011 20:48, schrieb Carl Lumma:
> Keenan Pepper wrote:
>
>> I think we should all start using these smart redirects for
>> everything, because the only disadvantage is that a reader
>> needs to manually click through,
>
> That is a serious disadvantage.
Because of an extra click?
I'd say the most simple form is

see [[other article]]

this form can be extended to small sentences like this (the original is a /hard redirect/ in en:wp)

Overshoes is an alternative name for [[Galoshes]].

>
> Why are you calling the Smart Redirects? They seem pretty
> dumb to me.
The English Wikipedia where i found something similar inspired me to use this tag, we can call it *soft redirect* for clearity (tag renaming is easy - maybe for admins only(?)).
(We can call them also /simple redirect/ or /open redirect/ )

These small pages are only smart with respect to easy editing, and the wiki software doesn't make editing easy. Another *important point* is that links to redirects are presented like links to non-existing pages - I have fallen many times in the trap.

Once these problems are fixed the software, we can convert the pages easily, because they are tagged uniformely.

--Wolf

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Hi Keenan, hi folks,

Am 18.08.2011 20:41, schrieb Keenan Pepper:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Wolf Peuker<wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
>> What is a "pipelink" (hard to understand for a non-English speaker)
>
> That's a term from Wikipedia. It means using a pipe symbol "|" in the wiki code to make the link text say something different from the target of the link.
Ok, now it's fully clear. Thank you.

>
> For example I could have [[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]] [...]
...and I see that I dislike pipelinks like

[[colors|red]]
[[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]]

or even worse

... for a historical overview look [[History|here]]...

From a psychological perspective, these are unfavorable.

>
> I think we should all start using these smart redirects for everything,
We are all free to use it :)

--Wolf

🔗Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...>

> >
> > For example I could have [[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]] [...]
> ...and I see that I dislike pipelinks like
>
> [[colors|red]]
> [[Porcupine family|Hedgehog]]
>
> or even worse
>
> ... for a historical overview look [[History|here]]...
>
> From a psychological perspective, these are unfavorable.
>
>
Totally agree with this. Pipelinks are great when used well, but they
shouldn't obscure the content of the link. An example of good usage might
look something like

has been important throughout the [[Temperament#History|history of
temperament]]

i.e. where the actual link doesn't flow well in prose. As this whole email
thread points out, though, the perceived convenience of pipelinks can cause
problems.

It's kind of a golden hammer situation. I'm not 100% sure of the following,
since I'm still getting used to the xenwiki and the topic in general, but
some clearer writing practice may help the whole redirect/pipelink
situation. That is, if we write:

"Hedgehog (a member of the [[Porcupine family]])"

"hedgehog (a [[Porcupine family|porcupine temperament]])"

... (or whatever's appropriate) when it's first mentioned in an article, it
would give noobs like me a clearer sense of the bigger picture ("what the
heck are all these crazy terms!?"), and it avoids most of the redirect
issues Keenan raised. There's also the option of redlinking [[Hedgehog]]
there, if you think it is likely to have its own article down the road. Of
course, that link could be added later, too.

I can see this possibly getting unwieldy when a lot of terms are getting
thrown around, but thought I'd throw it out there.

As for stuff like "...look [[History|here]]" that is just bad web practice,
wiki or otherwise; the W3C has recommended against links that look like that
for many years.

Jason

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> Am 19.08.2011 16:33, schrieb Jason Conklin:
> >
> > "Hedgehog (a member of the [[Porcupine family]])"
>
> This is an example for a *really smart* redirect :) - Thanks!

Pipelinks are fine. Do NOT put manual redirects on
separate pages, put them inline as I describe in my
previous post.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> What's smart about it? It doesn't take you to hedgehog.

I see someone unilaterally embarked on this braindead
policy before responding to comments here

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/tag/view/smart+redirect

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > What's smart about it? It doesn't take you to hedgehog.
>
> I see someone unilaterally embarked on this braindead
> policy before responding to comments here
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/tag/view/smart+redirect

I don't see any comments there.

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> Or, the "see [[Hedgehog]]" link could just be placed at
> Porcupine family#Hedgehog at that time, so the extra hop
> is only introduced when it is needed.

I don't understand this at all. You have to explain more clearly.

It seems like this would introduce the extra hop when it becomes UN-needed (because you could just directly link to a dedicated article).

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > Or, the "see [[Hedgehog]]" link could just be placed at
> > Porcupine family#Hedgehog at that time, so the extra hop
> > is only introduced when it is needed.
>
> I don't understand this at all. You have to explain more clearly.
>
> It seems like this would introduce the extra hop when it
> becomes UN-needed (because you could just directly link to a
> dedicated article).

If the issue is the difficulty of updating pipelinks throughout
the wiki when a dedicated article is written, this solves it,
since it takes only one edit to implement. Like your suggestion,
it introduces an extra hop, but only after the dedicated article
is written, not before. And the extra hop is to a page with
other (possibly useful) content rather than to a blank one.

-Carl

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> If the issue is the difficulty of updating pipelinks throughout
> the wiki when a dedicated article is written, this solves it,
> since it takes only one edit to implement. Like your suggestion,
> it introduces an extra hop, but only after the dedicated article
> is written, not before. And the extra hop is to a page with
> other (possibly useful) content rather than to a blank one.

Let's look in detail at the user experience for your and my proposals for a specific example. Take "Augene".

In my proposal:
* If a specific article is not yet written, the user clicks on a link to "Augene", then they have to click on one more link to get to the specific section in the "Augmented family" article automatically. Extra effort: one click.
* If a specific article has been written, the user clicks a link to "Augene" and goes directly to the specific article. Extra effort: zero.

In your proposal:
* If a specific article is not yet written, the user clicks on a link to "Augene" and gets redirected to "Augmented family". But since redirects cannot point to specific sections, they end up at the top of the "Augmented family" article. If they want to get to the section about augene, they have to manually scroll down and find it. Extra effort: scrolling to find the relevant section.
* If a specific article has been written, the user clicks a link to "Augene" and gets redirected to the generic article, which in this case is *not* the most specific relevant information available. If they want to get to the "Augene" article, they have to scroll down, as above, to find the augene section, then click the link located there to get to the "Augene" article. Extra effort: scrolling *plus* an extra click.

Am I misinterpreting your suggestions somehow? Is there some other reason why your proposal is better? Or is it really this clear-cut?

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

"Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> In your proposal:
> * If a specific article is not yet written, the user clicks
> on a link to "Augene" and gets redirected to "Augmented family".

In my proposal, the user clicks on the link and is taken
directly to Augmented family#Augene.

> * If a specific article has been written, the user clicks a
> link to "Augene" and gets redirected to

...The specific Augene page.

> Or is it really this clear-cut?

It's the same thing as the "Main article" device on wikipedia.

-Carl

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
>
> > In your proposal:
> > * If a specific article is not yet written, the user clicks
> > on a link to "Augene" and gets redirected to "Augmented family".
>
> In my proposal, the user clicks on the link and is taken
> directly to Augmented family#Augene.
>
> > * If a specific article has been written, the user clicks a
> > link to "Augene" and gets redirected to
>
> ...The specific Augene page.

It's impossible to have both of the two above things happen, though.

The first thing is only possible if you make every page link to "Augmented family#Augene" without using a redirect (because redirects can't go to section anchors).

But the second thing is only possible if you either edit *every* page so it links to "Augene" directly, or if they had already been using redirects.

Both are not possible with the same system on Wikispaces. If I'm wrong, please explicitly describe what you would do to achieve both of the above effects.

> > Or is it really this clear-cut?
>
> It's the same thing as the "Main article" device on wikipedia.

But redirects on Wikipedia do not suffer from the same deficiencies as on Wikispaces.

Keenan

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> > In my proposal, the user clicks on the link and is taken
> > directly to Augmented family#Augene.
> >
> > > * If a specific article has been written, the user clicks a
> > > link to "Augene" and gets redirected to
> >
> > ...The specific Augene page.
>
> It's impossible to have both of the two above things happen,
> though.
>
> The first thing is only possible if you make every page link
> to "Augmented family#Augene" without using a redirect (because
> redirects can't go to section anchors).

Right.

> But the second thing is only possible if you either edit
> *every* page so it links to "Augene" directly, or if they had
> already been using redirects.

Wrong.

> > It's the same thing as the "Main article" device on wikipedia.
>
> But redirects on Wikipedia do not suffer from the same
> deficiencies as on Wikispaces.

This has nothing to do with redirects at all. I'm
uncertain as to where your confusion is regarding this
very simple proposal.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:

> >> It's the same thing as the "Main article" device on wikipedia.
> >
> > But redirects on Wikipedia do not suffer from the same
> > deficiencies as on Wikispaces.
>
> *That's* the very problem.

It'd be great if redirects were more flexible, but since they
aren't, the "Main article" pattern will have to do.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Am 22.08.2011 01:23, schrieb Carl Lumma:
> I wrote:
>> This has nothing to do with redirects at all. I'm
>> uncertain as to where your confusion is regarding this
>> very simple proposal.
>
> Here's what it would look like in the Hedgehog case
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Porcupine+family#Hedgehog
>
...seems not sooo bad.

What about this?

I included the [[Hedgehog]] page into [[Porcupine family]] and
changed the "Hedgehog" heading there into a link to the included page.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Hedgehog
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/page/diff/Porcupine+family

At first glance, it's a good solution, but I see 2 deficiencies:

(1) missing link to the overview page (easy to solve)
(2) same size in both cases - maybe there is an option in the
wikispaces inclusion, to restrict inclusion to the first section

Best,
Wolf

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Am 22.08.2011 00:02, schrieb Carl Lumma:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
>
>>>> It's the same thing as the "Main article" device on wikipedia.
>>>
>>> But redirects on Wikipedia do not suffer from the same
>>> deficiencies as on Wikispaces.
>>
>> *That's* the very problem.
>
> It'd be great if redirects were more flexible, but since they
> aren't, the "Main article" pattern will have to do.
>

Another point (you saw my changes on [[Hedgehog]]?), that shouldn't be
forgotten (when testing has been finished):

It's often necessary, to edit contents slightly, after having moved it
from one a section to an individual page and vice versa.

Let me explain this on the basis of two criteria:

Context
An individual article should mention its topic's context,
a section should not.

Definition
An individual article should have an intro with a concise overall
definition. For a section it can be sufficient to distinguish its topic
from those of other sections.

Best,
Wolf

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:

> I included the [[Hedgehog]] page into [[Porcupine family]] and
> changed the "Hedgehog" heading there into a link to the included
> page.

That's exactly what I tried days ago. It doesn't
work properly with the toc as you found. Also the
inline heading produced doesn't match any of the
heading fonts available from markup.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@> wrote:
>
> > I included the [[Hedgehog]] page into [[Porcupine family]] and
> > changed the "Hedgehog" heading there into a link to the included
> > page.
>
> That's exactly what I tried days ago. It doesn't
> work properly with the toc as you found. Also the
> inline heading produced doesn't match any of the
> heading fonts available from markup.

What the heck is the point of this "inclusion" stuff??

I thought I finally understood what Carl was talking about, but now I'm all confused again. The "inclusion" seems totally stupid to me, but that could be because I don't understand what problem it's intended to solve.

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> > That's exactly what I tried days ago. It doesn't
> > work properly with the toc as you found. Also the
> > inline heading produced doesn't match any of the
> > heading fonts available from markup.
>
> What the heck is the point of this "inclusion" stuff??
>
> I thought I finally understood what Carl was talking about,
> but now I'm all confused again. The "inclusion" seems totally
> stupid to me, but that could be because I don't understand
> what problem it's intended to solve.

Wolf changed my demo before you could see it, alas. Here
it is again:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Porcupine+family#Hedgehog

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> > Wolf changed my demo before you could see it, alas. Here
> > it is again:
> >
> > http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Porcupine+family#Hedgehog
>
> Is there some point to saying "see hedgehog" instead of just
> turning hedgehog into a link?

It's harder to miss, but either way works. "Main article"
is probably best if you ask me.

-Carl

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Am 23.08.2011 02:52, schrieb Carl Lumma:
> --- "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>>> Wolf changed my demo before you could see it, alas. Here
>>> it is again:
>>>
>>> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Porcupine+family#Hedgehog
>>
>> Is there some point to saying "see hedgehog" instead of just
>> turning hedgehog into a link?
>
> It's harder to miss, but either way works. "Main article"
> is probably best if you ask me.
>
The stereotype "Main article: [[article name]]" seems useful to me.

But don't forget to tell something more than this in a section. It
should be clear /why/ it is there. In other words, wee need at least a
short description on pages like [[Porcupine family]]
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Porcupine+family#Hedgehog

else we would get a "soft double redirect" situation
(1) /see/ in the toc on top of the page
(2) /see/ in the section pointed to by the toc

Best,
Wolf