Requesting clarity on edits that update redirecting URLs

Question

I frequently edit posts that include redirecting microsoft.com URLs. My reasoning is generally that a redirecting link today may be a broken link tomorrow, so as long as the redirect has preserved the content of the original, I'll update it (if not, I'll look for an archive link.) This also sometimes allows me to replace an http link with an https one.

In a recent edit suggestion, I replaced a docs.microsoft.com URL with the learn.microsoft.com URL to which it redirected. This edit was rejected by two out of the three reviewers, which surprised me as I've made a lot of these edits here in the past and they have always been accepted before.

As an example of a broken microsoft.com link, I'd like to refer you to my comments on this Stack Overflow post in which a social.msdn.microsoft.com link was broken, redirecting to a 404. I had searched, but couldn't be sure if I'd found a page with the same information or not.

Microsoft has not always been good about ensuring its old URLs redirect to new ones, and while docs.microsoft.com currently redirects to learn.microsoft.com, this redirect may be withdrawn in the future.

Based on the edit reject, it seems that some people disagree with my reasoning here, and I'd like to get clarity on whether these edits are considered OK going forward.

Followup: I've just had another, similar, edit rejection (https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/1249247).

I updated a URL from

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/3092579/surface-pro-3-or-surface-3-doesn-t-hibernate-in-windows-10

to the URL it was redirecting to

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/topic/surface-pro-3-or-surface-3-doesn-t-hibernate-in-windows-10-14a76ab8-70ed-292d-58b8-09ffccac0c61

While these URLs are both on the same domain, the possibility that the old URL might become stale surely still applies! I've submitted the edit again, this time explicitly citing this Meta discussion. (EDIT AGAIN: it has been accepted this time.)

Answer 1

Pointing out that the links are redirected and you're editing them specifically so they don't go stale would likely ensure they're accepted.

Coulda done worse, I once had a valid edit rejected elsewhere cause I thought it was obvious and gave "ALL HAIL GRUMPY CAT" as a reason.

There's no way to reverse it, so I'd suggest doing it again, and maybe if you want to be extra sure, link this post in the edit reasons.