Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Red link) (bot
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Red link) (bot
Line 214: Line 214:
::::::The example shows that if the check is not made immediately the error could persist for years. I think that is why the example is better suited right after the best practice statement, as it shows why it's a best practice and the consequence when the best practice is not followed. [[User:Banana Republic|Banana Republic]] ([[User talk:Banana Republic|talk]]) 23:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
::::::The example shows that if the check is not made immediately the error could persist for years. I think that is why the example is better suited right after the best practice statement, as it shows why it's a best practice and the consequence when the best practice is not followed. [[User:Banana Republic|Banana Republic]] ([[User talk:Banana Republic|talk]]) 23:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I still disagree. We could ask for more opinions, by, for example, leaving a note about this at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 06:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I still disagree. We could ask for more opinions, by, for example, leaving a note about this at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 06:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

== Protected edit request 22 November 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|full|answered=yes}}
Change "[[African eleephant]]" (which exists) to "[[African eelephant]]" in [[Wikipedia:red link#Dealing with existing red links|#Dealing with existing red links]], and add a link. If [[African eleephant]] should be RfD'd, do so. [[Special:Contributions/128.194.3.149|128.194.3.149]] ([[User talk:128.194.3.149|talk]]) 02:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 05:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:05, 20 June 2020

Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Time to update the guideline

This edit is the third time in the last twelve hours that the editor has decided to add red links and links to DABs. It's my understanding that the current feeling is that red links should be created if there's a possibility of the link becoming a blue link. Am I wrong? We want to avoid a sea of blue, why don't we want to avoid a sea of red as well? WP:REDNOT needs to be made more prominent and the intro should be clear about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The communication was all on my talk page. Check the editor's edit history.
REDNOT - did you see the sea of red? "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions." is the first line in REDNOT. The article is for a project that was created more than a decade ago. If its participants have not made a name for themselves yet, they likely won't now.
CONSENSUS is not the applicable policy as that article has low volume and we're not going to get more than we two editors.
Don't talk down to me @Francis Schonken:. I know how to use Wikipedia. What needs to happen is greater prioritization of REDNOT in the opening part of the guideline. Rather than have the second sentence start, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." I suggest "It is not useful to create a red link when editing articles unless it is clear that the subject is notable and verifiable" or something similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
ok, I have read the exchange on your talkpage, and it translates to me as that the other editor cannot use the guideline as the basis for his edits because your feel the guideline is outdated, is that right? Agathoclea (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No. The editor is selectively reading the guideline to add a sea of red to the article. Creating links to subjects that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia. This is not a CONSENSUS issue.
The guideline is fine as a whole, but we need to emphasize REDNOT more. I have had more than one editor inform me that they will continue to add red links and quote the opening paragraph here or allude to them as a "very useful tool". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
During my commute I realized that unless you have a tool or some JavaScript to enable the colourization of links, all links look the same to you. The following are all red links:
  1. Nirva Dorsaint as Mama Mary
  2. Matt Hammit of Sanctus Real as blind cripple
  3. Donnie Lewis as Jairus' wife
  4. Bob Farrell as Governor Pilate
  5. John Grey as Preacher Rabbi at the wedding
  6. Nathaniel Lee as Janitor Angel
  7. Todd Collins – percussion
  8. Jason Eskridge – background vocals
  9. Kim Fleming – choir
  10. Brad Ford – vocals, assistant executive producer
  11. Robert Gay – children's chorus
  12. Rachel Goldstein – choir
  13. Kirk "Jelly Roll" Johnson – harmonica
  14. Tony Lucido – bass guitar
  15. Rick May – drums
  16. Antonio Phelon – choir, background vocals
  17. John Ray – choir
  18. Becky Robertson – children's chorus
  19. Joanna Robertson – children's chorus
  20. Thomas Romines – choir
  21. Pete Stewart – acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, piano, electric piano (all of these links are common terms and against WP:OVERLINK and the MoS for albums)
  22. Greg Thomas – choir
  23. Patti Thomas – choir
  24. Michelle Valentine – choir
  25. Paul Wright III
  26. Carl Marsh – Fairlight, string arrangement
  27. Bethany Newman – art director, design
  28. Marcelo Pennell – audio engineer
  29. Carter Robertson – choir director
  30. Dan Shike – mastering
Eddie DeGarmo is the only one that has a reasonable change of becoming a blue link as a member of a notable band, a solo artist with two albums and the executive or a major Christian record label, yet, no red link! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a question that relates to this issue. The lede of the guideline says, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. ... Articles should not have red links to images, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not a celebrity in his or her own right, and thus lacks notability." And the REDYES section of the guideline says, "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain that the red link is a valid title of a page, and that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." (Emphasis added.) Thus my question has two parts:

  • The present tense of "is" suggests to me that redlinks should only be created if the person or subject is notable and verifiable at the time the redlink is created. Or to say it in a different way, a redlink should only be added if the person or subject could at the time the redlink is added have an article written about them, but it just hasn't been written yet.
  • If that is correct, does the "carries the responsibility" line imply that if a redlink is challenged for not being about a currently notable person that the creator of the redlink has the obligation to demonstrate that the person or subject is notable by at least providing two reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia sufficient to at least satisfy GNG?

That seems to be a fair reading of the guideline to me since, first, otherwise who or what could be a proper redlink would often be the subject of rank speculation and, second, those who create redlinks would have a responsibility important enough to mention in the guideline but not important enough to be enforced, but I don't know if it is correct or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that's what it says, but I think it's too soft. Too many people Wikilawyer their way into creating massive amounts of redlinks that will never become articles based on a cursory reading of the guideline, and the example here is a case-in-point. For instance, in a sports article for a tier-one professional league. It's very reasonable to create a redlink to a player name on the roster as the notability guidelines are generally vague enough to suggest that if the player actually steps onto the playing surface for a league event, that makes them notable. However, in the case of an album, like this, not all of the performers are currently notable and will likely never be notable. So, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" is sending the wrong message. "Soon" is not clearly defined (is it in the next day, week, month, year, decade?) and it will lead to edit wars. Stating the negative up-front is more clear, and sets the groundwork for a follow-up sentence that grants permission. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
cursory reading of guidelines would cause you to miss the entire lead section that states "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic" . Also please don't attack me again. Implying that I am someone who is wiki-lawyering is derogatory.speednat (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And in case it helps in this sea of red, less time arguing that all those red links need to be deleted and more time researching (about 10 seconds) and the first two people are notable. Nirva Dorsaint and Donnie Lewis
Sorry. Please read what I wrote again. I did not imply, or least did not mean to imply that you were wikilawyering. I meant to state that other editors have used this MoS to engage in wikilawyering. This is why the opening paragraph needs to change to be more forceful in stating that red links should not be created if the articles are not likely to be created and retained on Wikipedia.
For the record, less time would need to be spent discussing changing the guideline if editors would simply read and understand the whole guideline rather than taking parts they like and forcing them on people. That was a direct attack on you, or at least a reference to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I will respond on your talk page and not waste everyone's time with your nonsense.speednat (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you read my posts or just scan them in a cursory manner. The guideline actually states as I stated above once and on your page once, In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic" Let me reiterate a section of that quote DO NOT REMOVE RED LINKS unless YOU are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject" Pretty clear to me but then again, if I were you I would be ignoring that section also. I am not forcing anything on you, you are free to not revert my edits, you are free to not read my edits.Do you think I am that dense that you could say well I did't say you were a wiki-lawyer I was referring to other people. I am the person that you are discussing and yet when you imply someone is a wiki-lawyer it is everyone else but me. Your deletion, sorry archiving, of our discussion is a blatant signal that you have no desire to compromise or discuss. I would have left this on your talk page but you deleted it so for continuity sake here is my final installment.speednat (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Not only do I read them fully, I respond to them fully. I am fully certain that they should not exist.
Now your turn. Have you read WP:REDNOT where it says, "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia"? I don't think you have because the whole discussion is because you thinkt that the subjects are likely to have articles created. That was my first question to you: "Template:Diff:User talk:Walter Görlitz" I have a Todd Collins album and know his work. He will never be notable enough to merit an article unless the notability guidelines change. Jason Eskridge, and the rest of the choir may have been in bands at the time or have been studio musicians. They're not going to merit albums. Every single member of the children's choir was a child at the time and was likely dragged into the session because their parent was working on the project or were asked to perform. They will likely never be notable. I will make exceptions for three of the redlinks: Bob Farrell is part of a husband and wife duo, and there might be enough for an article about the duo with a brief discussion about Mr. Farrell, but none has been created and it likely won't be. Carl Marsh is an arranger in Nashville, but he hasn't gained enough GNG to merit an article of his own. Greg Thomas, who was a CCM artist in the 80s, but he wasn't a top-selling artist and I don't think I could find any info on the subject if I dug. So yeah, I understand the topic extremely well and by your own admission, you don't. So why do you think any of the other twenty-five remaining entries meet WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO to merit an article a decade after their involvement in this project? Oh yeah, because you like trying to fill-in redlinks in articles even if creating those redlinks goes against the guideline and you've never thought to create those redlinks in your user space rather than in main space. I expect you'll ignore answering the question. Prove me wrong. If you don't answer though, I won't bother answering any of your self-aggrandizing attempts to embarrass me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw the proposal because it is clear that it is going to end up either as "no consensus" or even a snow oppose and I don't feel that there is enough support to convert this into a RFC. Let me say, valedictorially, that I do think that this guideline is sufficiently ambiguous that both the "every red link should be retained unless it is absolutely impossible that it could ever be a notable article" and the "only red links to things which are already notable" positions, and many shades in between those extremes, can be argued with some support in this guideline (albeit that I think that the latter viewpoint is correct, but that's just me). That ambiguity is not a good thing. I don't have a dog in this hunt as I neither add many red links nor go around removing them. My only interest is in seeing that WP policies and guidelines actually help clarify things rather than just provide additional points to argue about. As it's currently stated, this one does not do that: it promotes drama, rather than reducing it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The term "plausible" is used throughout the guideline to discuss red links which should be retained. That creates an ambiguity demonstrated by Speednat, above. I propose to add a footnote to each of those uses which would read as follows and which I believe clarifies the actual current meaning of the policy:

Plausibility does not exist unless the subject of the red link is at least notable and verifiable at the time the link is added and at all times afterwards. If challenged, the burden of demonstrating notability and verifiability is on the editor attempting to add or retain a red link.

The exact edit can be seen here. Depending on initial response, I reserve the right to change this discussion into a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would agree to this addition by TransporterMan. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree, it needs to be changed one way or the other. However, would it not discourage red-links if the creating editor would have to deal with them, which might mean they just don't add any red-links which I think is a bad idea, because red-links are a great way to get the articles created. Bottom line is I don't care either way other than how it will affect the wiki growth. When I get on a kick I just create pages based on red-links but then there are times that I don't want to be bothered as I am focused.speednat (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Initially I felt that either way works as long as the guideline isn't saying two different things like now; And me being the peacemaker and all....however upon further thought, I would rather go through a group of red-links and deal with removing those that are not necessary rather than reviewing articles to add links in for articles that were created later. - speednat (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, in principle. I'd sooner see a statement saying do not create red links first and a note stating that we should only add redlinks if they are likely to be notable and verifiable, rather than say remove if they're not. We need to discourage the frivolous creation of red links as was done by Speednat in the example provided. Also, red links are not a great way to get articles created. AfC is a great way to get articles created. Manually creating articles is a great way to get articles created. Adding red links pisses editors off when they click on something and there's nothing there. Creating red links encourages the creation of non-noatble articles that waste editors' time to curate and take through deletion processes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
are you citing any source on that or just pulling it out of the air. My source is the MOS:redlink, but I guess that was probably made up. I, for one and I know I am far from the only one to create from redlinks. The system is set up well for the no page there issue. If the link is red ---it doesn't exist, blue --- it does. Not too hard, and again if Wikipedia is such a waste of your time, why do it? Creating non-notable articles encourages the creation of non-notable articles. speednat (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Disagree: I totally disagree with the statements made by Walter Görlitz. AfC is not a tool designed to create articles on notable subjects, but instead, is a platform designed to only allow creation of articles which might withstand a challenge at AfD. Not remotely the same thing as creating articles through community expansion, utilizing the concept of AGF and collaboration to establish that articles are not only notable but based on verifiable information. Redlinks are and should be added when notability has been verified but an article has not yet been created. There are entire WikiProjects built upon creating content from redlists. They do result in the creation of articles on notable subjects.[1], [2], [3] I am not opposed to adding the above text IF there is also a change to the statement not to remove red links that in essence requires gaining consensus or allowing the person who added the red link to "demonstrate notability and verifiability". At this point, the rewording is placing the onus for adding a redlink on the creator, but allowing the person who wishes to delete a redlink free will to act based upon their own initiative. In other words, "Do not remove red links unless you have gained a consensus through discussion that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". SusunW (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You're right that there are individuals who create article from redlinksI have seen them keep those redlinks on their user pages or project pages. I have not seen a successful group create articles from main space. And AfC is a great place, but you're right, not the only and not the best place for creating articles. I also agree that with your suggestion that the person who added a red link should demonstrate notability and verifiability. Having been active in AfDs I can say that most editors don't have the first clue about that there and it will be a problem here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • At very least, it's a legacy thing. The idea of the redlink [in mainspace] is a pretty key part of Wikipedia's identity and history, and a huge amount of this encyclopedia (pre-2007, at any rate) was created by following redlinks from the few articles that existed. I'd like to suggest not going down this path of challenging the usefulness of redlinks in general, as it will draw a lot more pushback than this very actionable proposal above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I am thinking there was a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I am opposed to the removal of redlinks without discussion and consensus. Simply because one doesn't like redlinks or isn't willing to do WP:BEFORE should not be a pass to indiscriminately remove redlinks created in good faith on notable subjects. SusunW (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Changing my "comment" to a decisive !vote. The guideline as written already states that writers must verify notability before inserting redlinks and the proposed change allows deletionist behavior to run unchecked, based on their sole opinion that a topic might not be notable. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree in principle, though I feel like the wording could be improved a bit, perhaps. I don't have a great idea for that at the moment, however, and my agreement isn't conditional on a copyedit. @Walter, there are definitely people who disagree with you regarding to usefulness of redlinks to start articles. In fact, to synthesize the points here, I would say that red links can be very useful when they're added conservatively (and when it's safe to presume others only use them for notable subjects). A list of Grammy Award winners, for example, makes a great list to turn red into blue. I think it's sufficiently implied in "this should be done when X" that "you should not do this unless X" (I think Wikipedia tends to err on the lighter side of gray, if that makes sense). They can be challenged like anything else, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree this is a proposal that would amount to even more policing on Wikipedia. It's hard enough to keep up with new article patrol & AfC, but now there's a proposal to police redlinks? I have a simple solution: if the redlinks you encounter are not notable, in your opinion, Be Bold and remove them, or add them to a redlinks list for creation. This idea will not help Wikipedia grow, but will hurt the gnomers and patrollers by giving them.more work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No more policing is required for this than for creation of articles. With the number of articles that go through the deletion process we can see that no policing is involved article creation so this won't add any overhead to patrollers, but it will offer them tools for removing seas of red. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Just remove redlinks if you think they're not going to be notable. Adding to the policy when we have a huge backlog of new articles to patrol & a backlog at AfC is not a good idea. We already have a tool: the edit function. There's no need for this proposal. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I did twice and the editor who added them in re-added them. There is a need for this proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz I understand your frustration, but what you are talking about is an edit war. If you removed them and they were re-added, then that's a point at which you can start discussing with the editor why they were re-added and if the conflict can't be resolved on talk page, take it further. There's no need to have a policy against red links. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
But when the editor refuses to even discuss whether the subjects will ever gain prominence and instead points to this policy (of course ignoring WP:REDNOT, it's time to update the policy to avoid edit wars like this. I've had about four a year like this and right now, I have time to change the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
As I've said above, I think that you're right, but there are passages in the policy, especially (but not only) "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." at REDDEAL which can be read to establish exceptions to that general rule. I, personally, don't think that they do, but the argument that they do isn't entirely without weight due to the ambiguity in drafting here, thus creating drama as illustrated by the dispute that led us here. The suggested change makes it clear that they do not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Nah, WP:RULECRUFT, and you seem to forget where you said this was a behavioural issue. The disputants at the !Hero page did not use the article talk page, and, as you know, article talk page(s) ... are the first resort for all disputes about Wikipedia content. Both disputants are knee-deep in behavioural issues, e.g. starting a WP:FORUMSHOP immediately after I had recommended to take a good look at WP:CONSENSUS (yes, WP:FORUMSHOP is part of that policy). The problem here is not with the REDLINK guideline or with any part of it, it are people apparently unaware of some of the basic principles of Wikipedia editing, like negotiating a consensus on an article talk page instead of tagging the regulars as a first step in a discussion. The proposed additions to the redlink guideline are more in line with furthering endless disputes than with a closer adherence to consensus-seeking procedures: thus no, rulecruft and I'm flatly against it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right. I erred when I continued the conversation on my talk page when there's a clear notice to take it to the article's talk page in the edit notice. I'm not forum shopping to get the editor to relent though, I'm trying to prevent any other editors from having to deal with the fecal matter ever again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Please watch your language. Here is the kind of edit I would prefer not to have to deal with again: don't think you are the first one to suggest an "improvement" to a guideline that would make it easier for them to "win" a dispute going on elsewhere. It will happen again, I'm sure. But no reason for me to call it fecal matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. It's perfectly acceptable language. if it offends you, show that the words I used were taboo first.
As for an editor requesting a change to a guideline that has served its purpose and needs to be updated, I will not relent in calling more out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I stick to my "Disagree" then, I'd rather seek logical argument to make me change my mind than calling out. Thus far you only illustrated why the proposed update to this guideline is not desirable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Cautiously agree. I think this seems reasonable, although I am concerned that it is open to abuse by those who might challenge a whole heap of valid redlinks and require a lot of time-wasting - this should not become an excuse for mini-RfDs. That said, I am sympathetic to the issue people are facing and most of the time redlinks should probably not be created for genuinely doubtful cases anyway (i.e. if you can't prove the redlink is valid with a few quick links, a SNG or a couple of sentences, it should be left out). Frickeg (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree per this, "The guideline as written already states that writers must verify notability before inserting redlinks and the proposed change allows deletionist behavior to run unchecked, based on their sole opinion that a topic might not be notable" by SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
But what should happen if they don't do that? Nothing? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
AGF that they have done that. On the other hand, you could simply do WP:BEFORE or have a discussion on the article talk page. If the two sides are unable to agree, then wait for a consensus of other editors. There is no time-sensitiveness to WP articles which are not violations of BLP or copyvio and in this case, since it is about an article which has not been created, there isn't a legal urgency and absolutely no permanent harm will come of having a redlink in an article. Neither drama nor editwarring is justifiable. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree as the object of the change is not the improvement of content, but a change in optics (i.e. removing the red). The proposal also shifts the bar from "plausibly be notable" to "proven to be notable". That makes a big difference especially if non-english or pre internet era topics are involved. For example a main actor in a notable Burmese television series can reasonably be expected to to have played in another series or movies. Can I prove that at this moment? No - therefor under this proposal he would need to be unlinked. He appears again in another notable series that another author writes an article on, who faces the same dilemma and would not be allowed to redlink, although at this point we would have a strong indication of notability based on incoming links if they had been linked. There are several projects which use the number of redlinks to a particular title to establish the need of creating an article by using bot generated lists. Not allowing redlinks in those cases also add extra work to article creators as the have to hunt for mentions of existing articles rather than having them readymade by using the what-links-here feature. Of course not everything is plausibly notable. A small town mayor is not likely to be notable. Cameraman No 2 on Movie X is most likely not notable. In those cases existing guideline already forbids the readlink, and therefore no change is needed. Agathoclea (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Agathoclea: So which of the redlinks at !Hero (album) would you suggest are "plausibly be notable"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Walter Görlitz: did the author of this article explained the logic to have some name with red-link and some others not? I would expect or all are red-link or all are not or just few of them red-link since they are planning to write an article for each of them. I do not think they are planning to write all those articles... But in general I agree that a good use of a red-link is better than a policy of the red-links. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @Elisa.rolle: No. I asked point-blank if any had a change to become an article and the question was ignored. See my talk page before I archived the discussion. This is a clear example where the guideline was used in order to avoid good use red links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
          • @Walter Görlitz: I can give you an example where I used red-links even if I will probably not create the article myself: I improved this article Inglis Fletcher and I noticed she was inducted into the North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame, therefore I searched if there was such article in Wikipedia. There was not but another article North Carolina literature had this sentence: "The "North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame" (est.1996) resides in the James Boyd House in the town of Southern Pines."... therefore I changed it as a subsection and included the inductees list. Of 60 inductees, 8 are red-links... But they are included in an all of fame about North Carolina Literature, therefore I think that is also a way to push people to convert those red-links into blue writing the article, even if I will not write it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
            • @Elisa.rolle: Sorry. I didn't mean to imply, or at least have you infer, that you were the editor in question. This is the discussion thread. Notice the question and comment: "Is there a hope that they will ever become blue links? If not, don't create them." The response is telling me that I'm incorrect (no, the MoS is incorrect or it contradicts itself). I follow-up with asking if there is hope of them becoming blue links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
              • @Walter Görlitz: no, no, I know you were not referring to me, I wanted just to give you an example when I think the use of red-links is fine, cause indeed, I hope they will become blue-links. I saw the other article, and I too think many of those red-links are not necessary. The creator of that page should have just accepted your edit. But creating a policy for the bad-behaviour of one is not the solution I think. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Responding to some of the concerns above: The change does in some ways seem redundant to guidance already here, and that's part of why my agreement above includes some hemming and hawwing about whether the wording is ideal. I read this as, in a way, attending to an unusual imbalance, though. We say that an article should be plausible, taking into account notability and verifiability, in order to link to it. That's well and good, but if someone doesn't follow that guidance or is otherwise new to the idea, the reverse is much less flexible: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". It's a very rare case of an absolute "certainty" written into Wikipedia guidelines. It is, of course, difficult to argue certainty of a negative when it comes to something as subjective as notability. For almost everything else, the burden is on the one looking to add content to show the positive (in the sense of arguing that it is verifiable, notable, etc.). Maybe the better fix for this issue would be to change the wording of the remedy to something like "Do not remove red links without a good faith attempt to determine whether an article is plausible first." This makes it more like WP:BEFORE and WP:BURDEN, preventing someone from simply removing all redlinks because of personal preference while also allowing them to challenge the addition of a red link like they would any other claim of notability. Maybe I'm overthinking it. I wouldn't take it as far as Walter, but I'm sympathetic to the situation in which a user doesn't take proper care to establish plausibility and then restores the links based on the wording of this guideline putting the burden on those who want to remove rather than the other way around. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Rhododendrites I concur with your assessment of the situation. We are here to create an encyclopedia. Removing red links reduces the opportunity to do that and hampers integrating articles into the encyclopedia. The emphasis should be on things that detract from our goal, not ones that assist us in creation. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - if i'm understanding this proposal correctly, if a redlink is removed, then the editor who wants it kept has to prove why it's notable. I disagree for multiple reasons: 1) a redlink could be made unintentionally via a misspelling for example. If someone is to remove the redlink, a potential link to the valid spelling of the article name is lost. 2) redlinks show that there are missing gaps of information on wikipedia. by seeing that an aritcle is not on wikipedia, it encourages creation especially for me when creating articles for Women in Red such as Noel MacDonald and Ada Mackenzie. If someone had removed the redlinks, then I would not have been urged enough to create these articles. 3) if someone removed a redlink, they would not have to provide a reason why they removed the redlink. instead, if i'm reading the proposal correctly, editors can remove redlinks but people who believe that articles should be made would have to be the ones to promote creation of articles that are notable. I believe it wouldn't be fair having editors removing redlinks without explaining why they believe an article shouldn't be made. Overall, i believe redlinks are important especially for wikiprojects. I agree that blue links are important, but redlinks are one step away from blue links when editors create articles to fill in the gaps of wikipedia. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Disagree: Redlink policy as is works adequately; further, it is extremely helpful to have redlinks when a new article on a topic is created, particularly where an article creator is saved the time of having to add the link to dozens of articles. One recent example is Irad Ortiz Jr., a jockey who met the WP:Horseracing SNG for quite some time, but no one got around to creating his article until last year. When the article was created, there were at least about 50 links that went live when the article did. A classic example of why redlinks are needed. It is also a waste of editor time and resources to have an AfD before there is even an "A" created. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree It may be perfectly reasonabe to create (and leave alone) a red link to a topic that in the end would be a redirect to a section in a broader article. A red link merely indicates information is required on a subject, not that it must be the topic of an entire article. This guideline (it is not a policy) could be written with greater clarity. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some years ago I enquired about whether it would be feasible to create an automated list of redlinks, that would appear much the same as Special:AllPages, except all the entries would be red.

One could peruse the list, and finding that there are, say 20 redlinks for, say, Pope Donald III throughout WP, and having established that they are not vandalism or typos, one could set about creating an article for said Pope Donald III, eliminating 20 redlinks in the process. This would serve a very useful purpose.

I can't find my original proposal, but I remember it being knocked on the head immediately as being beyond the capacity of the system at that time. Have things marched on, technologically speaking? Is this now a goer? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: - in case you're still wondering, there is Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles, but as far as I can tell it's manually updated, and not done very frequently. ansh666 21:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does this apply?

I just closed a CfD or seven where WP:REDNOT was mentioned as a reason to keep user categories that didn't meet WP:USERCAT, and reading through the usercat debates shows this to be a main argument. However, being a newcomer to the debate, it seems to me that this is at odds with what the guideline actually says, since all of the language points specifically to links in "articles" - i.e. mainspace - and not "pages" - i.e. other places like user pages or project pages. This raises several questions: is this language intentional or not; if not intentional, should the guideline be expanded to include other namespaces; and if intentional, what and where should our stance on redlinks in other namespaces be (if I'm not blind and it's already somewhere else, that is)? ansh666 21:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I would propose changing the line "An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." in the guideline to "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." Keeping redlinks in any namespace is not useful for the same reasons it is not useful for article space. VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a landmine of a proposal in response to an innocent question. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That could be a solution of sorts to the usercat stuff (though I wouldn't be too optimistic), but it still doesn't address the main question. ansh666 19:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Before we talk about proposed language, we first need to reach consensus on the more basic question: whether the guideline is intended to apply to redlinked cats in all spaces, or just in article space? I think we can assume that VegaDark thinks it should apply to all pages. What about everyone else? Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing the rationale for the encyclopedic usefulness of keeping redlinked categories (in any namespace) from those that feel there is such a benefit. To argue against my proposed change is to argue there is such a benefit, no? VegaDark (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not just talking about categories, just like this guideline isn't just about categories. ansh666 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but my proposed edit above solely changes a section on categories. I guess I'm not seeing the value in being preoccupied with whether or not the current guildeline could cover these pages, rather than discussing if this guideline should cover these pages. VegaDark (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with VegaDark, with a small edit: "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists." A category is a feature of the MediaWiki software and exists if it is populated, regardless of whether an actual category page (i.e. the page containing the description, etc.) exists. The category page is just the face of the actual category. In this context, WP:REDNOT is an extremely poor (and tautological) reason to keep a category, since it merely states that a category that should exist (i.e. should be populated) should have a corresponding category page. It completely fails to address the central question of a CfD, which is whether the category itself should exist (not just the category page). Quite simply, there is no reason to keep a page in a red-link category—either the category should exist and should be created, or it shouldn't exist and the page should be recategorized. (@Ansh666: If you sense any frustration in my response, please know that none of it is directed toward you—on the contrary, I appreciate your attention to the stale discussions. My frustration lies with the small handful of editors who persistently (and sometimes aggressively) refuse to respect the result of CfDs that affects a category on their user page.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, if nothing else at least to reinvigorate this discussion. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Linking persons"

In my opinion, the title "Linking persons" is not clear. I tried to relabel the title as "biographical articles", but got reverted with the comment "tortured wording". Perhaps there is yet a better way to write the heading, but I think "Biographical articles" is a better title than "Linking persons". BarbadosKen (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy in guidelines

I get a very different feel from reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links than from reading Wikipedia:Red link. The only justification given in this article for removing a red link is notability, without mentioning the prioritization of red links and the distraction/overlinking issues which are discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links. These should be added to this page. I think this page is too strongly in favor of red links, and should acknowledge the tension between the pros and cons and then leave room for editorial discretion. Daask (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and this viewpoint never gets consensus. The development of the encyclopedia takes precedence over a handful of editors having an aesthetic issue with redlinks, which they're welcome to fix on their own end with Javascript or a similar approach. For everyone else, there are no cons to marking the (notable) articles which still need writing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the request is to harmonize the two, not to make changes to either to avoid redlinks completely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Daask was advocating changing this guideline to legitimise aesthetic reasons for removing redlinks rather than only removing them for non-notability, rather than fixing the out-of-sync MoS page. This is a non-starter (how many times do we have to establish there is no consensus for it?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is typically useful to link to the prior discussions, so that we might educate ourselves on the points for/against made earlier. Where are those? --Izno (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: - It sounds like you're saying that there is clear consensus in favor of Wikipedia:Red link over Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links. If so, I gladly suggest that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links be modified accordingly and will leave it at that. Daask (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See here for the push to create it. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems red to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's because it's create-protected...because of its use as an example redlink on this page, which is preventing the creation of a (probably) valid redirect. ansh666 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Realistically, Driving in Madagascar should be a redirect to Transport in Madagascar. Any objection to me changing the redlinks in this article to Driving in Liberland (as a plausible yet unlikely to ever be needed redirect)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@RHaworth: Since you're the one that protected it due to it being "Repeatedly recreated: vandalism", would you be willing to create it as a redirect to Transport_in_Madagascar#Highways and then protecting the redirect? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Are you aware that Wikipedia:Red link#Dealing with existing red links uses driving in Madagascar as a red link? People create that page because trolling is fun. The solution is to delete the page and salt it (protect the deleted page so it cannot be created). As the guideline explains, there is no reasonable article that could be written about driving in Madagascar and linking it to transport misses the point. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen, are you aware of the discussion further up this thread? – Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Surely it makes sense to delete the redirect and keep it red (salt it). Is this really an issue? Bishonen | talk 12:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
The guideline includes this text:
An example of a plausible red link might be to driving in Madagascar, since an article on driving in the United States exists, and country-specific driving articles like these are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red...
The text needs to provide a realistic example. Using a made-up example with Liberland is no help because Liberland is a joke and anyone reading the guideline would think that it was saying they should not create red links regarding joke articles. Driving in Madagascar is a good example because Madagascar is a real country and there is even a Transport in Madagascar article, however anyone trying to make an article on driving in that country would be missing the point of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"Driving in X" is a common title of redirects [4]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Likely to be created v. Notable?

Hi, I noticed that one of the sections says that we should only redlink if we think an article is "likely" to be created out of it. I find this a bit problematic, because there are a lot of notable topics that are not "likely" to be created because of our cultural biases, language barriers, or because they are obscure topics that most editors who are competent enough to create an article won't find interesting. For example, I recently created an article about a suspected Mexican criminal leader and redlinked multiple other notable ones in a section. They are not "likely" to be created given what I mentioned previously (I hope I get to them at some point in the future), but I still redlink them because they are notable topics. Any thoughts? MX (✉ • ✎) 20:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What is "excessive"

A few years ago we had an RfC about redlinks in navboxes which, when it was closed, led to this change to WP:REDNOT. I remember opposing the change because, at the time, we already had an exception for sets, series, etc., which strike me as the most logical time when we would want redlinks in navboxes. That exception was replaced with what I read as a more lax attitude to redlinks in navboxes, so long as they aren't "excessive" (and if they are "excessive", then whoever added them should be working on them to make them blue).

The case that came up was Template:Bruno Latour, a highly notable academic. The navbox includes links to his major works/books, many of which do not have articles yet. These are all notable works, so while I don't typically like redlinks in navboxes, in the case of a set of notable works or a series, it just makes sense to me (as long as there are some blue links in there, too, of course). This has been challenged as "excessive," making me realize I don't know what that term means if restriction to members of a fixed set of notable works can be excessive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Like many things, I think this is a "I know it when I see it" situation for which there is no hard-and-fast rule, and think most editors would feel the same. The specific navbox you mention seems to cross the excessive threshold (navboxes are for navigation after all). I would change that section to be "Selected Works" and then show only the blue links; as editors created more articles, additional blue links should of course be added. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What UnitedStatesian said. The place for a list of works is the author's page, or a separate bibliography. A navbox is for navigating. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Templates I've worked up have few red links, and they should only be placed if there is a reasonable explanation that an article will be written. It is one way for editors to see which important and interesting article topics are available and to encourage them to write the page. Excessive is, as said above, "known when seen" (although deletionists should realize that their perception of excessive is not the same as editors who trend more inclusionist and stretch their acceptance level a bit), but good templates should have few, if any, red links, and certainly not create a sea of red. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I still find vague terms that rely on "I know it when I see it" unhelpful in our policies and guidelines, but I see I'm in the minority on this one. I'll go ahead and remove the redlinks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The Template:Igor Stravinsky uses since 2010 a system where red links are placed in a <noinclude>...</noinclude> "Missing" section. This has worked well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Aren't you adding unnecessary bytes every time an article using the template is downloaded by doing that? Why not just track these things at Template talk:Igor Stravinsky? Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I think this was the behaviour of <noinclude>...</noinclude> blocks some years ago. When I inspect the HTML source of a transclusion of the Stravinsky template, I see no evidence of hidden text, but I'm no guru in these matters and hope someone more knowledgeable can provide a definitive answer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect observation (the purpose of the “redlink” URL parameter)

I have noticed that ?action=edit&redlink=1's purpose is redirecting to the main article if the article has been created meanwhile. I initially wondered what the redlink parmeter is for.

Should this be mentioned in the article? ––84.147.37.240 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the features but I don't think it's the primary purpose. mw:Manual:Parameters to index.php#Optional additional data only mentions another feature: if the user does not have permission to edit the page, redirect to the empty article page (e.g., "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name") instead of showing the permission error notice; this parameter is used on red links. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-existing_page&action=edit&redlink=1 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-existing_page&action=edit when logged out. The two links give the same page creation window if you can create the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to mention it in the article so more users understand its purpose and behaviour better. I also initially wondered about its purpose. --Handroid7 (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The Tom Mueller example

To be frank, I don't quite understand the point of the Tom Mueller example in the article. The example was added in January 2016 when guideline did not allow redlinks to biographical articles. I reworded the example to make it (what I think) more coherent. Since the insertion of the example in 2016, the guideline was changed in July 2017 to allow red links to biographical articles following the consensus reached on the talk page.

The purpose of the insertion of the example seems to have been to drive home the point that red links to biographical articles are bad. So now that red links are allowed for biographical, the example seems out of place. The only way I can see to make the example relevant is to add to the guideline that red links to biographical articles must include a parenthetic disambiguation in the title. Barring such a change, I think the example just creates confusion rather than being helpful. Banana Republic (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the example was to emphasise that "what links here" should be checked before creating a biographical article. The text as it was immediately after the example was added was intended to illustrate the need to check, though it could have been more explicit, with something like "this would have been avoided if the creator of the later article had checked that there were no links to it":

All the rules that apply to our biographies on living people equally apply to redlinked names. When creating a biography from a redlink be sure to use "what links here" to make sure all the incoming links are properly disambiguated. It's not rocket science: an article on the book Extra Virginity redlinked the author's name, journalist Tom Mueller, in 2012. Following that link reveals that Tom Mueller is in fact a rocket scientist with SpaceX, according to an article created in 2014.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of the example was to emphasise that "what links here" should be checked before creating a biographical article. Remember that this is a guideline on how to use red links, not a guideline on how to create biographical articles. Banana Republic (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there was already a paragraph about caution that needs to be taken when creating a new article, so I just moved the example (and slightly reworded to fit with the existing text) to the more appropriate location. Banana Republic (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Reverted move. It's more relevant there as an example. I really don't see how it fits best higher. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The reason I believe the example better fits under the section "When to create red links" is that the example, although biographical in nature, applies to all articles, not just biographical articles. All new articles should be verified that incoming links that used to be red until the article was created are correctly linking to the newly created article. Banana Republic (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
But the "When to create red links" section already states, "When creating an article, it is best practice to: (a) check whether there are existing red links that will be turned blue by the creation of the article and (b) check whether those incoming links are pointing to the right place and to correct them where needed." The biography example is specifically relevant to the "Biographical articles" section because it's about sending people to the wrong biography article. I don't see that this example, which I think is helpful, needs to be in is better placed in the "When to create red links" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The example shows that if the check is not made immediately the error could persist for years. I think that is why the example is better suited right after the best practice statement, as it shows why it's a best practice and the consequence when the best practice is not followed. Banana Republic (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree. We could ask for more opinions, by, for example, leaving a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request 22 November 2019

Change "African eleephant" (which exists) to "African eelephant" in #Dealing with existing red links, and add a link. If African eleephant should be RfD'd, do so. 128.194.3.149 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_6&oldid=963481852"