Archangels

This is… a redirect. Apparently, someone thought it was a good idea to point a more common or perhaps just more obvious term towards something else. A redirection, if you will, from the obvious to the… less obvious. Or perhaps just the more specific. It’s a concept that’s far too clean for my liking, frankly. Too much efficiency, not enough chaos.

Redirects from Plural Forms

This particular flavor of redirection, the one tagged as “redirects from plural,” is a bit like acknowledging a crowd exists but only bothering to address one individual. It’s a linguistic concession to convenience, a way to smooth over the rough edges of language when people inevitably use the plural form of a word when the singular is the actual article of discussion. It’s a shortcut, and I generally despise shortcuts. They bypass the nuance, the little detours that reveal the true character of things.

Now, the official line, the one that’s probably buried somewhere in the dusty archives of Wikipedia policy, is that this is for convenience. A user might type in “angels” and, poof, they’re directed to “angel.” It’s meant to be seamless, a gentle nudge in the right direction. And yes, the instruction is to add the plural form directly after the singular link, something like [[angel]]s. It’s a concession to the fact that language is messy, that people don’t always adhere to the most precise phrasing.

But here’s the thing. The instruction, the one that’s meant to keep things tidy, also says not to bother changing these redirected links unless the page itself is being updated for some other, more pressing reason. It’s the digital equivalent of leaving a half-finished sentence hanging in the air. It implies a certain… inertia. A reluctance to truly finish the job. And if you find a plural form in any namespace other than the main one, well, then you’re supposed to use a different tag. {{R from modification }}. Because apparently, even in the realm of redirects, there are hierarchies.

It’s all rather… pedestrian, isn’t it? A lot of rules about how to point people from one word to another. It’s like setting up a series of signposts in a fog. They might be accurate, but they don’t necessarily help you see any clearer. And this specific tag, this rcat as they call it, is only for the main pages. Anything else, and you’re in a different category of redirection. It’s a system built on exceptions and specific circumstances. Much like people, really.

So, here we are. A redirect. A placeholder. A sign that says, “Go there instead.” It’s efficient, I suppose. But efficiency rarely accounts for the subtle shades of meaning, the unexpected connections, the sheer, delightful mess of it all. It’s a compromise, and I’m not a fan of compromises. They tend to dilute everything.