G'day Rolf,
My aim was not to enumerate all of the better choices;
but rather, as stated, to provide a (singular) "better choice".
The main thrust of that paragraph was absolute vs. relative links.
Years ago, on a number of occasions, I fell afoul of using [node_name] due to some conflict;
e.g. a SoPW page and a Monk's username shared the same "node_name".
Since then, I've preferred links which contain a "node_id";
this makes the link unique and I don't have to spend any time checking for,
and possibly making adjustments to handle, conflicts.
I will often use both a "node_id" and a "node_name"; e.g. [id://node_id|node_name].
Examples include:
-
wanting a shorter version of the full name (e.g. [id://1177642|SSCCE]);
-
honouring a Monk's signature name (e.g. [id://708738|Rolf] used above);
-
and so on.
For some years, replies have included a [id://node_id] text;
this makes it very easy (via copy-paste) to generate content like:
Refer to my [id://some_id|first] and [id://other_id|third] responses.
There are many ways to provide a link. "What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?" has details. Here's some examples:
I wouldn't consider [The Hermitage] to be the "second best choice".
I'd rank all of those containing a "node_id" as superior.
| 