Misplaced Pages

:Red link: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:13, 28 February 2015 view sourceCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,748 edits →See also: Why is this here twice? You only need to dissent once← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:36, 20 November 2024 view source ZaLink700 (talk | contribs)66 editsm →See also: Removed the brackets. 
(694 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{Redirect|WP:RED|redirects|Misplaced Pages:Redirect|the Reference desk|Misplaced Pages:Reference desk}}
{{Redirect|WP:RED|redirects|Misplaced Pages:Redirect|the Reference desk|Misplaced Pages:Reference desk|the RedWarn counter-vandalism tool|WP:REDWARN}}
{{subcat guideline|editing guideline|Red links|WP:RED|WP:REDLINK}}
{{subcat guideline|editing guideline|Red links|WP:RED|WP:REDLINK|WP:REDLINKS}}

{{bots|deny=Cewbot}}
{{nutshell|Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. '''Do not remove red links''' unless you are certain that Misplaced Pages ''should not'' have an article on that subject.}}
{{nutshell|Red links are for subjects that should have articles but do not. They are not only acceptable, but needed in articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. '''Only remove red links''' if you are certain that Misplaced Pages ''should not'' have an article on that subject.}}


{{Quote box {{Quote box
|width=30% |width=30%
|quote = "Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system" |quote = Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system.
|salign=right
|source = ''The collaborative organization of knowledge, Communications of the ACM''
|source = Spinellis and Louridas, "The Collaborative Organization of Knowledge"<ref name="spinellis">{{Cite journal |author=Diomidis Spinellis and Panagiotis Louridas |date=August 2008 |title=The collaborative organization of knowledge |journal=] |at=Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 68–73 |doi=10.1145/1378704.1378720 |quote=Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system.}} See also ].</ref>
|align = right |align = right
}} }}


A '''red link''', ], signifies that the linked-to page does not exist—it either never existed, or previously existed but has been ].
A '''red link''', like ], signifies a link to a page that is either non-existent or ]. It is useful in editing article text 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 ] and ]. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Misplaced Pages grow.<ref name="spinellis">Diomidis Spinellis and Panagiotis Louridas (2008). The collaborative organization of knowledge. In ], August 2008, Vol 51, No 8, Pages 68–73. {{doi|10.1145/1378704.1378720}}. ''"Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system."'' See also ]</ref> Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being ] from the start.<ref>]</ref>


Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is ] and ]. Red links help Misplaced Pages grow.<ref name="spinellis"/> The creation of red links prevents new pages from being ] from the start.<ref>]</ref> Good red links help Misplaced Pages—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that ].
Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest ], and thus lacks ]. Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles—but one may link to the title of a deleted article if one intends to write an article about an entirely different topic that has the same title. 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 Misplaced Pages ''should not'' have an article on that subject.


In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject. It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article <em>section</em> where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see ]). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Misplaced Pages articles grow. A valid red link should be left in place if the reader agrees on need for a future article with that best name, but does not want to provide one.
Good red links help Misplaced Pages—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that ].

Articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not notable in their own right. Red links should not routinely be made to every chapter in a book, or to all the people mentioned in an article. Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability. Red links may sometimes be created to articles deleted for some other reason. In addition, even if a page has been deleted because it does not meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines, you may make a red link to the term if you intend to write an article about an entirely different topic that happens to have the same title.


==Creating red links== ==Creating red links==
A red link appears whenever double brackets <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> are placed around a word or phrase for which Misplaced Pages does not have an article, disambiguation page or redirect. A red link appears whenever double square brackets <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> are placed around a word or phrase for which Misplaced Pages does not have an article, disambiguation page or redirect.


===When to create red links=== ===When to create red links===
{{Shortcut|WP:REDYES}} {{Shortcut|WP:REDYES}}
Create red links ] for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition to play an important supporting role for its existing context. A technical term probably qualifies because it is probably "notable" and probably should have that obvious title. But in many cases, a bit more responsibility for creating a red link should be taken to ensure the red link is entirely proper. Create red links whenever a non-existent article with more information would ] the content of the article in which the red link will appear. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition, to help support its role for its existing context. A technical term could qualify because it is probably "notable" and should have that obvious title.


The topic of the red link could actually exist, but under a different ]. The topic may well be covered in a section of another article; it could even be buried in several paragraphs nearby. So it is the responsibility of the person who creates a red link to scan for the topic's coverage. The ] links at the bottom of that page will link to virtually all related articles, and the search engine ] for advanced queries that can pinpoint matching text anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Both search methods employ ] features crafted to find information on Misplaced Pages, and to help build Misplaced Pages, red link by red link. Before adding a red link, make sure that its subject does not already exist under a different ]. The topic may well be covered in a section of another article; it could even be buried in several paragraphs nearby. So it is the responsibility of the person who creates a red link to scan for the topic's coverage. The ] links at the bottom of that page will link to virtually all related articles, and the search engine ] for advanced queries that can pinpoint matching text anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Both search methods employ ] features crafted to find information on Misplaced Pages. They can help us build Misplaced Pages, red link by red link.


Red links should be formatted as a ] of a page with proper capitalization and syntax. The new subject matter should meet the ] guidelines for topics covering: people (]), web content (]), businesses (]), and more. Take care when creating a red link that it has a ] and that its subject meets ] guidelines for topics (including those for people (]), web content (]), businesses (]), etc.).

{{anchor|incoming links}}
{{Shortcut|WP:INCOMINGLINKS|WP:CHECKAFTERCREATE}}
After creating an article, (a) use ] to find any red links that your new article turned blue, (b) check whether those links refer to the topic of your new article, and (c) change any links that refer to a different topic.


===Avoiding creation of certain types of red links=== ===Avoiding creation of certain types of red links===
{{Shortcut|WP:REDNOT}} {{Shortcut|WP:REDNO|WP:REDNOT|WP:NORED}}
Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Misplaced Pages, including articles that do not comply with Misplaced Pages's ]. Do not create red links to:
* ] that are unlikely to be created and retained on Misplaced Pages, including articles that do not comply with Misplaced Pages's ].
* ] that do not exist. Either the category ], or the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that already exists.
* ] that do not exist. Templates should be added to a page only after they have been created.
* ] that do not exist. Such red links are categorized for cleanup at ].


Because they are useless as navigation aids, do not create red links in:
Red links generally are not included in either ] sections or in ], nor linked to through templates such as {{tlx|Main}} or {{tlx|Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like.
* Templates such as {{tlx|Main}}, {{tlx|Details}}, {{tlx|Further}}, and {{tlx|Seealso}}, which are intended to direct readers to existing articles.
* ] sections (see ]).
* {{tlx|About}} and {{tlx|Otheruses}} hatnotes.
* Redirect pages.


Red links may be used in ] which also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed from the template.
An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) ] in it. Either the category ], or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.


Red links are not to be shown on the ].
Caution should be used when creating a redlink to a person's name. All the rules that apply to ] 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 ].


===To biographical articles===
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.
{{Shortcut|WP:REDBIO|WP:REDLINKBIO}}
As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet ]. All the rules that apply to ] equally apply to red-linked names.


====Non-unique names====
Do not create red links to ]. Such red links are categorized for cleanup at ].


Redlinking a name which may not be unique bears the risk of the link eventually pointing to an article added later for a different person, company, or place with the same name. This is unlikely for, say, ], but very likely for football player ]. Redlinking names of people who are not obviously notable also creates a link that may be unlikely to ever become blue. Adding detail to the link makes a misdirected link less likely (but not impossible); ] is better than ]. Simply redlinking names of people in an article, without detail, particularly if not obviously notable, should be avoided.
===Disambiguation pages===

Use of red links on ] pages should be limited. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to direct the reader to an existing article for the page's topic, so a red link does not help. There are some cases, however, where this is acceptable. Only add the red link if there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page.
] is particularly important when creating new biography articles with article names that may not be unique. If some article has a redlink to that name but meaning a different person, the link will become blue but incorrect. This does happen in reality: for example, in 2012 a red link was placed in the article about the book {{oldid2|644038859|''Extra Virginity''}} to link to a future article about the book's author, <nowiki>]</nowiki>. In 2014 an article was created for a different ], a rocket scientist, without checking for existing incoming links. The red link in the ''Extra Virginity'' article thus became blue, but the link was to the wrong person. The error was , by renaming the link, which remained red, to ]. It might have been preferable to unlink the name; the writer may not be Misplaced Pages-notable, and even <nowiki>]</nowiki> is not guaranteed unique; in this particular case there is {{#ifexist:Tom Mueller (writer)|, about whom there is now an article|, though without a Misplaced Pages article as of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}.

===In disambiguation pages===
{{Shortcut|WP:REDDAB}}
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links}}
Use of red links on ] pages should be limited. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to help the reader arrive at the correct existing article from a choice of articles with similar titles. Since a red link is a link to a non-existent article, using red links in disambiguation pages is usually discouraged. Red links can be used in disambiguation pages if existing encyclopedic articles (i.e. not disambiguation pages, because disambiguation pages are not considered encyclopedic) have such red links.


==Dealing with existing red links== ==Dealing with existing red links==
{{Shortcut|WP:REDDEAL}} {{Shortcut|WP:REDDEAL}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Creation of example red links as pages}}
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.
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.


A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be ''left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information''. An example of a plausible red link might be to ], since an article on ] exists, and country-specific driving articles like these are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder ]" that says only "There is driving in China", with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue. Editors should create stubs with a usable amount of content, or else not create the stub at all. Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Misplaced Pages for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism. A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be "left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information." An example of a plausible red link might be to [[{{ifexist series<!--
-->|Corruption in Wales<!--
-->|Corruption in Algeria<!--
-->|Corruption in Belize<!--
-->|Corruption in Bhutan<!--
-->|Corruption in Burkina Faso<!--
-->|Corruption in Djibouti<!--
-->|Corruption in Fiji<!--
-->|Corruption in Greenland<!--
-->|Corruption in Honduras<!--
-->|Corruption in Kiribati<!--
-->}}]]<!--
This ought to last a couple decades or so. -JPxG, 2024
-->,<ref>For past examples listed here, see ].</ref> since an article on ] exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder ]" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world", with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue. Editors should create stubs with a usable amount of content, or else not create the stub at all. Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Misplaced Pages for the creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism.


Likewise, a valid red link term like ] should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article. Likewise, a valid red link term like [[{{ifexist series<!--
-->|Corruption in Wales <!--
-->|Corruption in Algeria<!--
-->|Corruption in Belize<!--
-->|Corruption in Bhutan<!--
-->|Corruption in Burkina Faso<!--
-->|Corruption in Djibouti<!--
-->|Corruption in Fiji<!--
-->|Corruption in Greenland<!--
-->|Corruption in Honduras<!--
-->|Corruption in Kiribati<!--
-->}}]] should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article. However, red links to articles that have since been deleted should usually be unlinked.


An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things: An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things:
* A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Misplaced Pages yet. '''Do not remove these redlinks.''' This has several applications: * A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Misplaced Pages yet. '''Do not remove these red links.''' This has several applications:
** From within an article, such a link prepares the article to be fully supported (not ] upon creation). At any time, a Wikipedian may independently write an article on the linked-to subject, and when this happens, there's already a link ready and waiting for it. The red link also gives readers the opportunity to click on it to create the needed article on the spot. ** From within an article, such a link prepares the article to be fully supported (not ] upon creation). At any time, a Wikipedian may independently write an article on the linked-to subject, and when this happens, there's already a link ready and waiting for it. The red link also gives readers the opportunity to click on it to create the needed article on the spot.
** The red link may identify a need to create a ] to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic. ** The red link may identify a need to create a ] to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic.
** Some WikiProjects have bots that determine how many times a certain red link appears in Misplaced Pages. This is used to determine what articles are the most needed. Editors can also, after clicking on a red link, use the "]" function to determine how many times the subject has been red-linked. ** Some WikiProjects have bots that determine how many times a certain red link appears in Misplaced Pages. This is used to determine what articles are the most needed. Editors can also, after clicking on a red link, use the "]" function (although the article does not exist) to determine how many times the subject has been red-linked.
* The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article. * The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.
* The link may have been made by someone who wasn't aware of what should and shouldn't be linked to within articles. Always evaluate whether or not a red link is pointing at a title that actually needs creation. See ]. * The link may have been made by someone who wasn't aware of what should and shouldn't be linked to within articles. Always evaluate whether or not a red link is pointing at a title that actually needs creation. See ].
* The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to ], but instead typed {{red link|African eleephant}}. In this case, try to figure out the intended article and fix the link. If it looks like a common misspelling, such as ], you may want to create a ] to the correct one, but you should still correct the misspelling even though it would no longer appear red. * The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to ], but instead typed "]". In this case, try to figure out the intended article and fix the link. If it looks like a common misspelling, such as ], you may want to create a ] to the correct one, but you should still correct the misspelling even though it would no longer appear red.
* The red link may be an intentional misspelling and should be treated as any other type of ].
* The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Misplaced Pages. If such an article meets the English-language Misplaced Pages criteria, then follow the procedures at ]; if not, use ] instead of or next to a red link. Such links can be made by:
** Using the interlanguage link template {{tlx|ill}}; for example, {{tlx|ill|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} shows {{ill|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}}, {{tlx|ill|ja|Nobuo Ina|伊奈信男}} shows {{ill|ja|Nobuo Ina|伊奈信男}}; When the English article is created, the other language link won't be shown: {{tlx|ill|bg|Parlichevo|Пърличево}} shows {{ill|bg|Parlichevo|Пърличево}}.
** Explicitly including the language tag in front of the article name; for example, the article ] has a short section on Dutch highway route markers with a reference to the Dutch-language article ].
** Creating the language as a superscript; for example '']'' <sup>(])</sup> in ]. Alternatively, if the subject of the link is unlikely to have an English article ever created, this can be written ]<sup>(fr)</sup>.
* Links in any of the various {{tlx|About}} and {{tlx|Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{tlx|Main}}, {{tlx|Details}}, {{tlx|Further}}, and {{tlx|Seealso}} notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed. * Links in any of the various {{tlx|About}} and {{tlx|Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{tlx|Main}}, {{tlx|Details}}, {{tlx|Further}}, and {{tlx|Seealso}} notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed.
* Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the ] chosen for that list. * Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such red links should be removed only if it's certain the subject ''would not'' qualify for an article on Misplaced Pages.

===Red links and interlanguage links===
* The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Misplaced Pages. If such an article meets the English-language Misplaced Pages criteria and you are able to translate, then follow the procedures at ]; if not, use ] instead of or next to a red link. Such links can be made manually or by using the interlanguage link template {{tlx|ill}}. For example
*{{tlc|ill|Richard J. Youle|de}} produces: {{ill|Richard J. Youle|de}} until the name is added to English Misplaced Pages ({{as of|lc=y|August 2024}} there is a German, but no English article);
*{{tlc|ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} links to the existing English page: {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}}.
*If the English and foreign names are different:<br> {{tlc|ill|Hooglede town hall|nl|Gemeentehuis van Hooglede}} produces: {{ill|Hooglede town hall|nl|Gemeentehuis van Hooglede}}


==See also== ==See also==
* ] - template for red link heavy articles
* ] – dissenting essay arguing for no red links
* ] (shortcut WP:TOPRED) – a weekly list of the most accessed red links, down to 1000 hits
* {{tl|Cleanup red links}}
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] – an essay
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] – including instructions to change the color, if you don't like red
* ] – mostly red-linked articles.
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]

===Lists of red links===
* ] – most red-linked articles
* ]
* ] – red-linked articles
* ] – red-linked lists focusing on women


==References== ==References==
Line 87: Line 141:


] ]
]

Latest revision as of 16:36, 20 November 2024

"WP:RED" redirects here. For redirects, see Misplaced Pages:Redirect. For the Reference desk, see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. For the RedWarn counter-vandalism tool, see WP:REDWARN.
Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages editing guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Red links are for subjects that should have articles but do not. They are not only acceptable, but needed in articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Only remove red links if you are certain that Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that subject.

Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system.

Spinellis and Louridas, "The Collaborative Organization of Knowledge"

A red link, like this example, signifies that the linked-to page does not exist—it either never existed, or previously existed but has been deleted.

Add red links to articles 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. Red links help Misplaced Pages grow. The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start. Good red links help Misplaced Pages—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Misplaced Pages is far from finished.

In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject. It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Misplaced Pages articles grow. A valid red link should be left in place if the reader agrees on need for a future article with that best name, but does not want to provide one.

Articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not notable in their own right. Red links should not routinely be made to every chapter in a book, or to all the people mentioned in an article. Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability. Red links may sometimes be created to articles deleted for some other reason. In addition, even if a page has been deleted because it does not meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines, you may make a red link to the term if you intend to write an article about an entirely different topic that happens to have the same title.

Creating red links

A red link appears whenever double square brackets ] are placed around a word or phrase for which Misplaced Pages does not have an article, disambiguation page or redirect.

When to create red links

Shortcut

Create red links whenever a non-existent article with more information would help a reader understand the content of the article in which the red link will appear. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition, to help support its role for its existing context. A technical term could qualify because it is probably "notable" and should have that obvious title.

Before adding a red link, make sure that its subject does not already exist under a different page name. The topic may well be covered in a section of another article; it could even be buried in several paragraphs nearby. So it is the responsibility of the person who creates a red link to scan for the topic's coverage. The category links at the bottom of that page will link to virtually all related articles, and the search engine provides features for advanced queries that can pinpoint matching text anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Both search methods employ MediaWiki features crafted to find information on Misplaced Pages. They can help us build Misplaced Pages, red link by red link.

Take care when creating a red link that it has a valid title and that its subject meets notability guidelines for topics (including those for people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), etc.).

Shortcuts

After creating an article, (a) use What links here to find any red links that your new article turned blue, (b) check whether those links refer to the topic of your new article, and (c) change any links that refer to a different topic.

Avoiding creation of certain types of red links

Shortcuts

Do not create red links to:

Because they are useless as navigation aids, do not create red links in:

Red links may be used in navboxes which also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed from the template.

Red links are not to be shown on the Main Page.

To biographical articles

Shortcuts

As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability. All the rules that apply to our biographies on living people equally apply to red-linked names.

Non-unique names

Redlinking a name which may not be unique bears the risk of the link eventually pointing to an article added later for a different person, company, or place with the same name. This is unlikely for, say, Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, but very likely for football player Thomas Howard. Redlinking names of people who are not obviously notable also creates a link that may be unlikely to ever become blue. Adding detail to the link makes a misdirected link less likely (but not impossible); John Alexander Smith (physician) is better than John Smith. Simply redlinking names of people in an article, without detail, particularly if not obviously notable, should be avoided.

Checking incoming links is particularly important when creating new biography articles with article names that may not be unique. If some article has a redlink to that name but meaning a different person, the link will become blue but incorrect. This does happen in reality: for example, in 2012 a red link was placed in the article about the book Extra Virginity to link to a future article about the book's author, ]. In 2014 an article was created for a different Tom Mueller, a rocket scientist, without checking for existing incoming links. The red link in the Extra Virginity article thus became blue, but the link was to the wrong person. The error was not corrected until 2016, by renaming the link, which remained red, to Tom Mueller (writer). It might have been preferable to unlink the name; the writer may not be Misplaced Pages-notable, and even ] is not guaranteed unique; in this particular case there is at least one more writer of that name, though without a Misplaced Pages article as of December 2024.

In disambiguation pages

Shortcut Main page: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Red links

Use of red links on disambiguation pages should be limited. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to help the reader arrive at the correct existing article from a choice of articles with similar titles. Since a red link is a link to a non-existent article, using red links in disambiguation pages is usually discouraged. Red links can be used in disambiguation pages if existing encyclopedic articles (i.e. not disambiguation pages, because disambiguation pages are not considered encyclopedic) have such red links.

Dealing with existing red links

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Creation of example red links as pages

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.

A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be "left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information." An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Wales, since an article on Corruption in Northern Ireland exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world", with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue. Editors should create stubs with a usable amount of content, or else not create the stub at all. Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Misplaced Pages for the creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism.

Likewise, a valid red link term like Corruption in Wales should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article. However, red links to articles that have since been deleted should usually be unlinked.

An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things:

  • A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Misplaced Pages yet. Do not remove these red links. This has several applications:
    • From within an article, such a link prepares the article to be fully supported (not orphaned upon creation). At any time, a Wikipedian may independently write an article on the linked-to subject, and when this happens, there's already a link ready and waiting for it. The red link also gives readers the opportunity to click on it to create the needed article on the spot.
    • The red link may identify a need to create a redirect to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic.
    • Some WikiProjects have bots that determine how many times a certain red link appears in Misplaced Pages. This is used to determine what articles are the most needed. Editors can also, after clicking on a red link, use the "what links here" function (although the article does not exist) to determine how many times the subject has been red-linked.
  • The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.
  • The link may have been made by someone who wasn't aware of what should and shouldn't be linked to within articles. Always evaluate whether or not a red link is pointing at a title that actually needs creation. See WP:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked.
  • The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to African elephant, but instead typed "African eelephant". In this case, try to figure out the intended article and fix the link. If it looks like a common misspelling, such as Scandanavia, you may want to create a redirect from that misspelling to the correct one, but you should still correct the misspelling even though it would no longer appear red.
  • Links in any of the various {{About}} and {{Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{Main}}, {{Details}}, {{Further}}, and {{Seealso}} notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed.
  • Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such red links should be removed only if it's certain the subject would not qualify for an article on Misplaced Pages.

Red links and interlanguage links

  • The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Misplaced Pages. If such an article meets the English-language Misplaced Pages criteria and you are able to translate, then follow the procedures at WP:Translation; if not, use a link to the article in the other edition of Misplaced Pages instead of or next to a red link. Such links can be made manually or by using the interlanguage link template {{ill}}. For example
  • {{ill|Richard J. Youle|de}} produces: Richard J. Youle  until the name is added to English Misplaced Pages (as of August 2024 there is a German, but no English article);
  • {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} links to the existing English page: Hanning Schröder.
  • If the English and foreign names are different:
    {{ill|Hooglede town hall|nl|Gemeentehuis van Hooglede}} produces: Hooglede town hall 

See also

Lists of red links

References

  1. ^ Diomidis Spinellis and Panagiotis Louridas (August 2008). "The collaborative organization of knowledge". Communications of the ACM. Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 68–73. doi:10.1145/1378704.1378720. Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system. See also WP:Inflationary hypothesis of Misplaced Pages growth.
  2. WP:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
  3. For past examples listed here, see /History of the example red link.
Categories: