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redirect to new ones, and while docs.microsoft.com currently redirects to learn.microsoft.com, this redirect may be withdrawn in the future.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


to the URL it was redirecting to


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.)

  • can you link the edit suggestion? I wonder if it was unclear what the change was and why
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Commented May 10 at 10:20
  • @JourneymanGeek Sure - superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/1248693
    – AJM
    Commented May 10 at 11:42
  • 3
    @AJM - "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." - This in my opinion is an invalid edit rejection. Be sure to include a note about the redirection. We want valid links, as long as it's a Microsoft website, I personally would always approve an edit like this. I took it upon myself to correct this error.
    – Ramhound
    Commented May 10 at 14:21
  • @Ramhound Thanks. Regarding "Be sure to include a note about the redirection." - I actually had! The edit summary was "Updated redirecting link", which was the only place I could have put any sort of note.
    – AJM
    Commented May 10 at 14:46
  • @AJM - See the note I made.
    – Ramhound
    Commented May 10 at 16:12
  • 3
    I'm the lone approver of that edit you linked. Perhaps the decliners weren't aware of microsoft moving many of their doc. links to learn.? There have been a spate of pointless, low quality edits that are not vandalism or spam, and approvers need to avoid getting stuck in ruts and should give each review task its own fresh attention, but sometimes I can guess a rut forms nonetheless. Commented May 13 at 14:51
  • 1
    Note that for one-off link updates, what you're doing is fine. But I'm wondering just how many eg docs.microsoft -> learn.microsoft links need updating, and whether it's a good idea to escalate this to CMs for use in the Bulk updating tool? We've done similar in the past
    – Robotnik
    Commented May 15 at 0:42
  • 1
    @Robotnik I've actually already asked about that, in a comment on that very question: "Can this bulk replacement tool automatically update each URL to the one it redirects to, or does this have to be a simple change like /osx/ to /mac/?" music2myear believed it had to be the latter, unfortunately, but if maintainers of the bulk tool disagree then I reckon there are a lot of these links that still need an update.
    – AJM
    Commented May 15 at 8:55

1 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.

  • 3
    Thanks. I normally use phrasing like "Updated redirecting URL" for the edit summaries, and that's what I did this time. Maybe in future I'll try something like "URL redirects, so updated to the current URL to ensure the link stays valid". I'm not an expert on meta, so is there any reason to hold off clicking the green tick here?
    – AJM
    Commented May 10 at 14:51
  • Oh, and one more thing... WE HAIL GRUMPY CAT! HAIL, HAIL, GRUMPY CAT!
    – AJM
    Commented May 10 at 14:51
  • 2
    Honestly there's no rep involved. - so up you. I'm just mildly annoyed I can't go "gimme a list of links, I'll sort it for you". I mostly am on meta to sort things out and be helpful :D
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Commented May 10 at 14:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .