Misplaced Pages

talk: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 13:32, 16 June 2015 editWoodensuperman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers87,031 edits →Nav boxes NO red links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:20, 26 November 2024 edit undoEscape Orbit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers74,163 edits Reverted 1 edit by Ariafp (talk): Self promotionTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{talk header|WT:REDLINK}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(90d) |algo=old(30d)
|archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Red link/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Red link/Archive %(counter)d
|counter=3 |counter=7
|maxarchivesize=100K |maxarchivesize=100K
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft=4 |minthreadsleft=4
|minthreadstoarchive=1 |minthreadstoarchive=2
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}


== BLP rules ==
== Contradiction: YES redlink to "article that can be created" and NO "article creation guide", so which is it? ==


@] the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a ] in which we ] the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).
The gist of the style guideline is that redlinks to articles that ''should be created'' should exist. But then there is this ''non-sequitor'' that states the exact opposite:
<blockquote>
"Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace '''solely for use as an article creation guide'''. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider ]."
</blockquote>


Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of ]" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on ] or ]". ] (]) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Which is correct? they can't both be correct at the same time. No "article creation guide" contradicts the entire article and it says to NOT create redlinks first. It reads like spam to get people to read the essay ]. It also is undue weight to have a contradiction in the second paragraph. Can it be reworded so it does not contradict the entirety of the guideline. See ] and join the discussion. --] (]) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote ] to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for ] apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section ] discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? ] (]) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
::Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or ]); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will ''correctly'' link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates ] when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick ] as to pick ]. ] (]) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it <s>less</s> '''more''' likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".<br>
:::However, condition #2 in ] says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "''{{tq|How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link.}}''" To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. ] (]) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I meant ''less'' likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it ''less'' likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to ]. Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
::::For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the <u>non-BLP</u> subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? ] (]) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::'''Note:''' I have reverted the ] section to the previous version that was available on {{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Red link|1210073703|24 February 2024 }}. ] (]) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


== Red user name ==
I have moved the contradictory paragraph here for the discussion and demoted the essay to the see also section. It appears to be a dissenting opinion embedded in the guideline
::"Red links are frequently present in ] and sometimes in ] or ]. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not ] in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider '']'', or to use ] or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."


I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. ] (]) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see the conflict or why the text needed to be The text is stating that we should not create a bunch of red links simply because we want those articles created. Like the lead of the guideline currently states, "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 ]." We should only create redlinks for WP:Notable topics that are likely to have viable Misplaced Pages articles. Like WP:Notable states, not all WP:Notable topics need a Misplaced Pages article; some fit well in an existing article. ] (]) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


== Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-) ==
:Since the content you dispute is guideline material, it should have stayed in the guideline while you dispute the matter on the talk page. The note at the top of the guideline states: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." And I'm not sure what you mean by ], since that policy only applies to Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::I agree with Flyer22, there is no contradiction between "You are allowed to create redlinks" and "...but you are urged to write the article first." ] (]) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


The current text says:
How about putting 'if a dispute arises about the existence of a red link, consider its notability and write a draft'? (Linking to the Article Wizard.) That has helped me when putting red links into articles. (Although it does nothing for habituating people to red links in articles, and puts the onus onto the person who wants the red link.) I think that the exhortation in the nutshell to only remove red links if you think Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that subject should be reiterated in the lead. It gets a little lost in the 'how to deal with existing red links' section. --] (]) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:''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.''
:Given what we say about "One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Misplaced Pages grow. Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start", I do not think it would be helpful to place any onus upon editors creating redlinks, beyond advising them to abide by article naming restrictions and their good faith conviction that the redlinked topic is notable per ]. ] (]) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.
{{outdent}}


I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --] (]) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
], do you have anything to state regarding what I stated above? What ] (BMK) stated above? There should be something advising editors not to unnecessarily overlink when it comes to red links, similar to the ] guideline. For example, the lead currently states, "Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles." ] (]) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


:Add after that sentence something like: ''Red links should follow the same ] as blue links with a term being linked no more than ] and with care ].'' ] (]) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
== Personal names ==


== Use of ifexist series template ==
"Red links to personal names should be avoided particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual."


In , {{u|JPxG}} added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how ''not'' to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create ], the page would then read
This is a little confusing as written. Is a "personal name" the first name of a person as opposed to a surname or a family name? Should it just read "person's name". It also mentions that the name might match up with a sex offender of the same name. Why would we have a list of non-notable sex offenders? I don't think we need to NOT link people's names, we just need to remind people when they create an article to properly disambiguate the person and check the "What links here" button. People's names are probably the most common reason to create a redlink. I do it all the time to see if someone is already in Misplaced Pages. Otherwise every reader that is curious has to create a red link to see if that person has an article. Almost every list I see is a sea of red names. I have been working on some lists of award winners for over 5 years. See ] vs , how would I know who has a biography and who doesn't unless they are linked. It makes more sense to just NOT have a list of non notable sex-offenders. Does this make sense? --] (]) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{xt|An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, 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",...}}
::would you like" names of individuals?" The difficulty of wording policy or guidelines precisely is one of the reason why I regard policy and guidelines as descriptive of what we do. It is the examples that make the guideline, and the exemplification in actual cases that best interprets it. ''']''' (]) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page ] encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. ''']'''] 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with RAN's suggestion of "person's name" - "individuals" is less plain language. The issue with red linking a name and walking away is that next year someone may create an article for a person with same name who has become notable - as a sex offender, or CEO or Olympic athlete. This creates a misdirect, which would confuse readers. For example, a list of candidates for mayor of Toronto linked a minor candidate named ]. Even if the link had been to "Kevin Richardson (Toronto politician)", there would be a significant risk that when the article is created, it is about a different Kevin Richardson who has run for office. Linking a name and expecting someone else to create the article is a bad idea. ] | ] 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::I'll try your wording adjustment. Of course we ought not make lists of people with borderline notability for something negative, and I think there's also a consensus to not include redlinks in lists of people of a specific cultural group. The problem of eds. filling in redlinks inappropriately is related to the problem of eds. changing redirects to something inappropriate--most of what I have seen is promotional, not abuse. I think there's been a discussion of technical measures. The use of name qualifiers would help--the likelihood of an example like just mentioned is very much lower than without them, but our current naming policy is to not use them if not necessary. I personally do not agree with that, and think we should follow the practice of some other WPs that use such qualifiers routinely, but this is one of the things I've given up arguing for. ''']''' (]) 17:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::: @ Ground Zero. The hypothetical problem is that ''someone in the future will expand the current list of seven sex offenders'' and they may match a name somewhere in Misplaced Pages. Who don't we just more closely monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. It is so much easier than deleting or not creating hundreds of thousands of redlinks of people's names. ''You can make the same argument to ban bluelinks since they are just as likely to be improperly disambiguated with a name on the existing sex offender list.'' Just monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. I just did that recently for the ] page, where people were adding in their enemies without any context. This was a bluelink problem: Jimmy Wales was on the ] show and she asked him why the name of her producer linked to a fictional mass murder, he said it was improperly disambiguated and fixed it. The lesson, simple names such as ] should lead to a disambiguation page, and almost all already do. --] (]) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


== Micromanaging red links ==
Instead of listing all the bad things like sex worker and rapists, we just need to comply with BLP.
<blockquote>
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 ].
</blockquote> --] (]) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research?
{{Outdent}}


I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. ] (]) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
], ] and ], I just read the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" part, and I was confused. I was tempted to alter that text and/or start a discussion about the matter here at this talk page, before I saw that there is already a section about it. Why was I confused? Why was I tempted to change it? That's because the text reads contradictory to me, since, if the person is WP:Notable, then it's common that the person's name should be linked. It's like the WP:Red link guideline is encouraging the creation of a blue link for all notable topics except people. ] (]) 13:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

From you guys' discussion, it seems that the text is trying to state that the link shouldn't simply be about the name; it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name. But the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" text does not express that well. ] (]) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah, going by what Ground Zero stated in his "12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post above, it's not even about "it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name." ] (]) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored because I see a couple of editors expressing a concern that it's not the best wording, but no consensus that it should be removed, or what should replace it. "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided, particularly when the name is used in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual" I'm not seeing an issue with this wording, particularly because it keeps this guideline in line with the BLP policy, which most redlinks aren't directly affected by. Personal names also are far from unique in most circumstances; editors will create wikilinks to a name without checking if it's the same person, even if that article already exists, so care needs to be taken when dealing with BLP subjects. - ] (]) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

== query ==

At what point are "future article" red links in an article excessive?

Note ] has red links for 14 articles not yet created for "New York Legislatures" spanning from 185 to 198.

Should a limit of some sort be placed on such mechanical lists of non-existent articles? Or is it likely that since the articles will eventually exist that we should populate biographies with all potential future articles and my amusement is unwarranted? ] (]) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:That example is just plain bad writing. Even if they were blue links we wouldn't/shouldn't individually list and link the 15 specific numbered legislatures she served in. The fact that 14 of them are redlinks is not the problem. The line should be edited to read: "She was a member of the ] from 1982 to 2009." I haven't done that now so as not to destroy the example. ] (]) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::Except ] is in fact creating those very articles in chronological order, so it is best to keep them. See for instance ] to see how much research goes into each article. You can see where it takes weeks of research to create a single article. While the lede can cay "She was a member of the ] from 1982 to 2009", linking to to the session summary is an excellent idea in the body. --] (]) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:::Well, it has been standard practice to add blue links to all congresses they were sitting in at US congressmen's bios. I just followed the pattern with state legislators. One of the main basic features of Misplaced Pages are exactly the blue links which lead the reader to interesting/important context. "She was a member of the NYSA from xxxx to yyyy" will never provide any context. The blue links show what happened in the Legislature while the member was acting there. And yes, there are now 7 blue links and 8 red links at Aurelia Greene, but look at ], the first man to serve 30 years in the New York State Senate, there are 30 blue legislature links, for the interested reader to explore. And if there are no blue links, people tag articles as ]ed... ] (]) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

== mobile Misplaced Pages ==

Please provide more information (in this article) about how en.m.wikipedia.org handles redlinks. ] (]) 18:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

==Changes needed==

===Nav boxes NO red links===
*"Red links generally are not included ... in navigational boxes" Why is that? Of course they should be. How is the reader to know whether the article exists and needs brackets to make a blue link, or we need to have an article on that person. This should be removed. What do you think? --] (]) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

::], I don't agree with of text you made. Just like the ] section, ] are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not indicate that an article should be created. What the text you removed is stating is that a topic that does not have a Misplaced Pages article should not be listed in the WP:NAVBOX; so your statement of "if it is important to have the name or place in a navbox" is irrelevant since the topics should not be listed there if they have no Misplaced Pages articles.

::I will likely start a ] on this for input. Generally, I am against significant/huge changes being made to a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline without significant discussion. ] (]) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:::A redlink indicates that an article very probably should be created. The mere existence of the name in the succession box indicates this by itself, since we use these boxes (or should be using them) only for positions that are very likely to imply notability.''']''' (]) 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

::::DGG, are you arguing that we should have red links in the navboxes? If so, the guideline already addresses the one exception to red links being in the navboxes -- the succession box aspect. Otherwise, they should not be there. Including them there doesn't even align with the WP:NAVBOX essay. ] (]) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::I've restored the text. There doesn't seem to be consensus for this change. ] states: {{tq|"Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Misplaced Pages"}}. Redlinks are not "within English Misplaced Pages". --] (]) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

===A redlink to a person's name should be avoided===
*I still think this needs to be removed "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" it still means to NEVER create a redlink, and is being used that way in arguments to remove all redlinks in Misplaced Pages articles. Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create. --] (]) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:"Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create." While that may or may not be true, that has nothing to do with the relevance of personal names being used as redlinks. Would you mind giving a link to one of these arguments to remove ''all'' redlinks in Misplaced Pages articles that cites "a redlink to a person's name should be avoided"? Without context I don't really think that's the case, because that seems like a generalization that has no relevance to the merits of the actual content. - ] (]) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:'''Note''': As seen in the ] section above, I recently commented about this. ] (]) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

===Clarification of 'likelihood'===
As I recently have had from the same person on the interpretation of 'likelihood', could we please clarify this in the guideline? I think that red links should be created when they link to valid titles - if it happens that they can be covered in other areas of the encyclopedia, then that is what redirects are for. I think the 'likelihood' is being confused into 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because there are few people on wikipedia to make them' or 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because the topic is obscure'. I don't think that these are valid arguments, because Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, and lots of notable, verifiable, and valid topics are obscure if you are outside the field that they crop up in. I would like to see some clarification of what is likely on the article guideline page - I tried to add it in (my first link) but was reverted. --] (]) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:You can go ahead and mention my username; I don't mind. Yes, I at the ] article. And I stated in that revert, "And how do we know they are ]? Provide proof on the article talk page. WP:Notable is also clear that not every notable topic should have its own article." You have posted as your proof. I will respond there. But as for validity, creating a red link just because you think that the title is valid is not valid. Too often, an editor will create a red link just because he or she wants to see an article created for that topic, even when that topic is not WP:Notable or should not have a Misplaced Pages article per what is outlined in the ] section of the WP:Notable guideline. Then we are left with an article on a non-WP:Notable topic or a ] for a topic that will very likely never expand beyond a stub. And, yes, like I stated to you in , if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Misplaced Pages article. Note: I stated "often," not "always." And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various ]s and the like.

:I noted in the ] section above that I will likely be starting a WP:RfC on that particular red link matter. There might be other things to start a WP:RfC on regarding this guideline, since editors are coming here and adding/removing anything they want to/from this guideline as though it's not a ] that should typically have ] before any significant changes are made to it. ] (]) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::Flyer, I am not at all clear what it is that you disagree with, here. The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we ''should'' have, rather than based on ''what we predict will be created''. Do you disagree with that? It seems incredibly reasonable, and clearly consistent with what is said elsewhere in the guideline. There's no change, here, just a clarification. On that note, what on earth does "Do not remove red links unless ... there is no article section to validly redirect the topic (see ])" mean? ] (]) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|J Milburn|label=Josh}} To your second point, I think the clause about article sections means that a valid red link may be one where the target is a redirect to a section of an article where the notable subject is covered as part of a broader topic. That is the point of ]. I have attempted to clarify the wording in the guideline. Feel free to tweak further as necessary, although – being a guideline – this point about redirects should probably remain in there unless discussed and consensus achieved to remove it. Of course, where the red link is a redirect, it's very easy to turn it blue by creating the redirect. <span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Maybe I'm being dim here, but I still have very little idea of you are trying to say. <s>Your new wording literally didn't make sense- "Do not remove red links unless ... a ] to a section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see ])."</s> Also, given that this point was only just added by Flyer, there's no need to get consensus to remove it- I'd say we need consensus to ''add'' it. In any case, if it's to stay, it needs to be clearer. I'm sorry if this sounds like a silly request, but could you say in simple English when you believe redlinks should be removed? ] (]) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::At this point I should let {{ping|Flyer22|p=}} speak for herself. My interpretation, however, was that the point about an article section being a valid target for a red link was already in the guideline, per {{Diff2|659869863|this edit summary}}. So the sentence you're having a problem with is an attempt at clarification, first by Flyer22, then by me. It's not a substantive change to the guideline, as far as I can see, but I might be wrong. Regarding clarity, I'll have to think further about that. Maybe someone else can help. <span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I'm none the wiser. How can "an article section being a valid target for a red link"? If it's a redirect, it's not a redlink? ] (]) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Outdent}}

J Milburn, I know that you and the IP have discussed this guideline before, and that the IP to weigh in on this latest matter. It seems that I don't fully share your and the IP's views of the WP:Red link guideline. I've explained above and at the Yaoi talk page how I feel about the guideline. You stated, "The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we ''should'' have, rather than based on ''what we predict will be created''. Do you disagree with that?" Yes, I partly disagree with that. I stated when reverting the IP, "obscurity is one of the things to consider; ] is clear that notability does not guarantee an article." And I stated above, "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Misplaced Pages article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.' And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various ]s and the like." When removing red links, it is often the case that editors are predicting what will be created, and I don't see a problem with that if the editor is using common sense and is taking Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines into account. I do see a problem with editors simply adding red links because they want an article created, or are hoping some ], who has no idea how to appropriately apply Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, will create it. Like I told the IP at the Yaoi talk page, we have more than one Misplaced Pages notability guideline, including ]. ] covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable or that it should have its own Misplaced Pages article.

As for what the WP:NOPAGE aspect that (and ) means, it means what Wdchk stated it means. And it was already noted in the guideline by the "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." part. I decided to make mention of it more explicit, especially since the IP had re-added the "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that subject." piece. The IP's edit on that matter made it seem as though the subject should automatically be an article; I wanted to make it clear that the subject might be better served as content placed in an existing article. ] (]) 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:How do we define a red link's 'likelihood' of becoming an article, if not plainly by the subject's notability and verifiability? There are already many warnings in this guideline on when not to create red links. I think that the bar of 'unlikelihood' is being set too low with cautions about obscurity. Dare I mention the ] on Misplaced Pages? A great deal of notable, verifiable, subjects are 'obscure' to someone, but are still very valid, encyclopedic topics. I also think that the concern that ] (Not brought up here, but a common media story about Misplaced Pages these days) is causing people to remove red links - 'what's the likelihood that someone would be interested in making an article on that topic?'.
:If stubs are created (which isn't too likely these days, given my experience with the stringency of the ] process... - my drafts typically get assessed as C-class on their entry into mainspace), then the ] will find them eventually expanded into something half-decent or redirected to an article section or deleted. I sincerely doubt that there have ever been higher barriers to newbies creating stub articles on Misplaced Pages. (I am making a very bold claim here, because I would love to be proven wrong.)
:I think there needs to be more said on how 'likelihood' is determined in this guideline, because in my experience, red links on subjects which are notable and verifiable are being removed - resulting in articles being orphaned from the start, and potentially not having people who would be interested in the topic (reading a related article) seeing the red link in that article's page and being enticed to create the article, or assist in drafting an article. I hope this helps clarify my concerns about how the 'likelihood' of a red link becoming an article is assessed, and helps move the discussion on. --] (]) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
::Flyer, I've changed the guideline page to read "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Misplaced Pages should not have an article on the subject, or if the redlink could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." If I am understanding you correctly, this gives across the broad thrust of your claim. If that's all you are aiming to say, here, then I agree- if that's all you mean by saying that we shouldn't link to things just because they might be able to support an article, then we're on the same page. If that's ''not'' what you're saying, and you genuinely believe that we should be removing redlinks because they link to "obscure" topics which, though notable, verifiable and encyclopedic (etc.), are not something you think anyone will be bothered writing about, then I'm glad to say that your view is not currently reflected in the guideline. (Again, I'm not trying to be ignorant here, but I am having some difficulty in following what's being said...) ] (]) 08:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::And I've no opinion on the anime article or any link therein. I'm here because of my interest in the guideline- no other reason. ] (]) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with you made regarding the likelihood matter, since what warrants a Misplaced Pages article is a case-by-case matter (like I stated above, multiple WP:Secondary sources do not mean that the topic warrants a Misplaced Pages article), and I'm fine with you made regarding the WP:NOPAGE guideline. As for removing a red link because it links to an obscure topic, yes, I (and many other editors) agree with that...if the removal is warranted; and I've seen many cases where the removal is warranted. I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that. I'm tired of seeing lousy WP:Stubs, ], and other pages that should not be Misplaced Pages articles just because editors don't understand how WP:Notability works and that Misplaced Pages has more than one notability guideline, or because they are hoping that a WP:Newbie (who, again, doesn't understand our notability guidelines) will do the work for them.

:::And, yes, IP, many WP:Stubs are still created. And many of them never expand enough to be a worthwhile Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Also, Josh Milburn, going back to you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; '''in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link.''' ] (]) 08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I think part of the reason it was unclear to me (and I admit that this may be my problem, rather than yours) is that when someone talks about ''removing'' a redlink, I imagine there being no link, and that's certainly what the first part of the sentence was about. You were talking about ''replacing'' a redlink with a blue link- admittedly, this does involve the removal of the redlink. Concerning "I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that." - yes, of course, I oppose red links to topics which "don't deserve" an article, but I don't think "obscurity" has anything to do with that. Misplaced Pages does and should cover a very wide array of deeply obscure topics. ] (]) 08:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::I don't doubt that Misplaced Pages should cover obscure topics. But, again, what I stated above about obscurity is that "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Misplaced Pages article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.'" By that, I mean that when it is an obscure topic, it's often the case that it's either not WP:Notable or it cannot be expanded beyond a WP:Stub and would be better served as a piece to an already-existing article. Misplaced Pages already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Misplaced Pages is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks. ] (]) 09:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Flyer, have you seen many cases where the removal of the red link is unwarranted, too? In my experience, if a stub is created, it can't be created by a newbie, because the AFC process is such that it selects against casual article-making. Having to wait for a month before someone even looks at your page is very discouraging unless you have a firm belief in the notability and verifiability of the topic and the quality of your writing. I'm tired of having to fight for red links to notable, verifiable, encyclopedic topics. Newbies and people who edit without signing up are capable of reading the notability guidelines, just like anyone else is, and the AFC process funnels people towards the relevant guidelines for making an article. Are you certain that those stubs you see will never ever expand enough to be a worthwhile Misplaced Pages article? What do you consider to be a worthwhile article? The worst thing that you've said about red links is that they encourage stubs. Even if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing? Those red links might be on valid topics that could add context to the first article. Good red links help Misplaced Pages grow, and remind us that Misplaced Pages will never be finished. --] (]) 09:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::IP, you stated it yourself above -- Misplaced Pages is not as active as it used to be. I've been editing this site since 2007; and back then, WP:Stubs were expanded much more often. But even then, a good number of them should not have become articles. And a good number of them are still WP:Stubs. Some of them only have a few WP:Reliable sources to support them, as if that means that they should be Misplaced Pages articles. Yes, I generally do not see WP:Stubs as a good thing. WP:Stub even , "A '''stub''' is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I cannot help it that I generally don't see "article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" as good things. And I've been clear above that "''Misplaced Pages already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Misplaced Pages is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks.''" So I don't know what else to state to you on this topic. You asked, "if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing?" If you can't see why I see that as " overwhelmingly negative thing," given what I stated above, then I really do not see the point in continuing this discussion with you. ] (]) 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::I've already stated why I don't regard Misplaced Pages being less active as being a valid consideration for the removal of red links. ]. Removing red links and arguing that stubs aren't found and expanded is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Removing red links leads to articles being orphaned from their (arguably delayed) inception and being unfindable (which would eventually lead to redundant forks). Being orphaned contributes to stubs remaining so for longer - because they're not well-linked and are harder to search for, potentially interested and knowledgeable people don't find and read the stub, and don't fix it.
::::::I'm not sure where to go from here. What makes a red link likely to become a worthwhile article? (Beyond the manpower factor.) Can we please clarify this in the guideline? As it is, red links to valid topics are being removed for reasons which do not consider the topic's notability or verifiability, which contributes to the orphaning and delayed growth of stub articles. This guideline does not define the question of 'likelihood' in a clear way. This lack of definition means that a common understanding is difficult to reach - as I think we've been demonstrating. --] (]) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::And I never stated that Misplaced Pages being less active is a valid consideration for the removal of red links. I've been very clear on what I mean, and I stand by it. You disagree, and I won't be agreeing with you. Furthermore, sources claiming that Misplaced Pages is less active than it used to be are quite clear that it is still very active, and they acknowledge reasons why it's less active -- such as the fact that '''Misplaced Pages already covers pretty everything there is to cover.''' In other words, they make it very clear that Misplaced Pages does not need to do much more growing. And that goes back to the points I've made about useless or silly WP:Stubs and WP:Redundant forks. Your fondness for red links will never be a view that I share. I was not speaking of ]. Anyone wanting to know what I mean by "worthwhile" can I am not speaking from a ] rationale on this matter, but from several years of experience editing this site. I doubt that you are anywhere close to being a WP:Newbie, so your experience with red link matters is different than mine for some other reason. And as for "likelihood," J Milburn already changed the wording to wording that you no doubt support. ] (]) 12:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|J Milburn|Flyer22}} Can we go back to {{Diff2|660390372|this edit}}, please? It doesn't look like anything I was trying to say. That whole sentence is about "Do not remove red links unless ...". "Remove" as in "delete the double brackets". (Sure, we hope and expect that someone real soon will create a page for that term to turn the red link blue. However deciding whether the new page is an article or a redirect to a section is an entirely separate matter. What we are talking about in this part of the guideline is, right now, should the red link be there or not.) The text now reads, "Do not remove red links unless ... the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section ...". Sorry, but that is going to be misunderstood. Remove the red link and replace it with a link to a section ... when? I know we're having trouble finding the right words, but the process we're trying to describe is not complicated: (1) is the redlinked term notable? If yes, leave the red link in; if no, you can remove it. (2) Separate decision, no need to make this decision immediately – do we write about the notable term in its own article or in a section of another article about a broader topic? If a section, we create a redirect from the notable term to that section. But maybe we are over-complicating by trying to go into unnecessary detail about part (2) of the process. Here's an attempt to separate things out into a simpler explanation; what does everyone think?<br>
:::"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. (Sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic – see WP:NOPAGE). Do not remove red links unless it is ''clear'' that the topic fails to meet Misplaced Pages's standards of notability." <span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 04:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Yes, as you can see in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated to Josh Milburn, "oing back to you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; '''in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link.'''" As for your proposal, Wdchk, I'd rather that the "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses. What do you think of wording the text as "or if the red link could be turned into a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see ])."?

::::On a side note: No need to ] me to this page since it's on my ]. ] (]) 04:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::Wdchk, I prefer your alternative wording here to the previous wording. I think "inclusion" would be better than "notability", as notability isn't necessarily the only relevant concern. I am opposed to Flyer's suggestion- creating a monster sentence with lots of conjunctions is not helpful; it's obfuscatory. How about "A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, it may sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is ''clear'' that the topic fails to meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria." I doubt this is perfect. ] (]) 07:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::My suggestion is the same as your wording, except I changed "could be replaced with a link" to "could be turned into a link." I changed it per what I stated in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post, and your response to that. The current WP:NOPAGE wording is a mix of all three of our efforts. But I can be fine with either your or Wdchk's latest proposals (I already mentioned above that I prefer Wdchk's "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses). ] (]) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Apologies- I have no preference between "turned into" or "replaced", but perhaps we could clarify that we mean "blue link". After all, a red link is still a link. ] (]) 08:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I'm suggesting we ''leave out'' the part about "red link could be turned into / replaced with a blue link to a section" because that seemed to be a point at which we started to get confusing (see my previous comment 04:08, 3 May 2015). My reasoning is that someone who wants more info about linking to sections can go read about it at WP:NOPAGE. To avoid tying ourselves in knots, since this is the red link guideline I'm suggesting we focus mainly on why we would leave or remove a red link. I'm intentionally cutting out the explanation about converting red links to blue links because really that's a different topic (when do you create an article vs. when do you link to a section vs. when do you create a redirect, etc. – all those things documented elsewhere). I'm actually good with J Milburn's version of 07:59, 3 May 2015, with a minor copyedit:<br />"A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, <s>it may</s> sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is ''clear'' that the topic fails to meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria." <span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In a situation where one person adds red links to a subject because they think it is ], ], and probably should have its own article, and someone else removes it because they think it falls under ] (as in ] recently), does the current wording of the guideline provide enough guidance to allow such a dispute to be worked out? --] (]) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

:I did not explicitly remove your links at the Yaoi article because of WP:NOPAGE; if I felt that your links covered WP:Notable topics, I would not have asked you to provide proof of the matter. After you provided sources, what you consider proof, I still doubted that the topics should be standalone articles; I still do. I'm not convinced that your red links in that case are WP:Notable. That's why I explicitly stated that multiple WP:Reliable sources noting a topic does not automatically mean that a topic is WP:Notable, and then I attempted to explain what I meant (all of this is documented at the Yaoi talk page).

:I think that the latest wording that J Milburn and Wdchk suggested above is clear enough. And if it's not as clear as it can be and needs more detail, that should be addressed lower on the page instead of in the introduction. I'm also not sure that you made is needed. ] (]) 05:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. I made that edit because all the other WP: style abbreviations on the page are explained or hidden behind a plain English explanation of what they are. I changed the BLP one for the same reason. Having the plain English there makes it clearer as to why someone should read that link, and will hopefully result in more click-throughs. --] (]) 05:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:20, 26 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

BLP rules

@Up the Walls changed the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a telephone game in which we oversimplify and misstate the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).

Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of WP:BLP1E" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station or Right-handed blue-green widgets". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote WP:REDBIO to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for WP:BLP apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section WP:REDBIO discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? Up the Walls (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or MOS:BIO); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates Tom Mueller when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick Tom Mueller (author) as to pick Tom Mueller (writer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it less more likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".
However, condition #2 in WP:REDBIO says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link." To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. Up the Walls (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
No, I meant less likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it less likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to Alice (expert). Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the non-BLP subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: I have reverted the WP:REDBIO section to the previous version that was available on 24 February 2024 . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Red user name

I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. 49.185.89.67 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-)

The current text says:

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.

I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.

I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Add after that sentence something like: Red links should follow the same general rules as blue links with a term being linked no more than once per major section and with care in the lead section. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of ifexist series template

In this edit, JPxG added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how not to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create Corruption in Wales, the page would then read

An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, 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",...

Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page like this encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. AviationFreak💬 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Micromanaging red links

Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research?

I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. Pascalulu88 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)