146.198.113.221

April 2024

Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of former Coronation Street characters without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

It wasn't a mistake. I was trying to make it look like the rest of the page. Other characters that don't have Wikipedia pages didn't have these orange hyperlinks. Only some did. So I was trying to make the page look more consistent. I was surprised this hasn't been done already by the page administrators.146.198.113.221 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Afternon, so the links you see are intentional (by someone). They are used to denote pages that don't exist but could/should. There's nothing wrong with removing them however its best to ensure you explain what your doing in the edit summary so it doesn't get mistaken for an error/test. Amortias (T)(C) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said. Having looked at similar pages for the other soaps, these orange links have been removed. I was wondering what the Wikipedia policy on this rule is.146.198.113.221 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is one of (the many) area where there's no real rule. Some articles have them, some don't, some editors add them where they think there's room for development, some remove them because they don't actually do anything. If there's reasonable ground to consider that there might be an article written about the subject of the link then leaving it in place is usually (but again not always) considered best practice. If its unlikely that there's going to be an article written about the subject (or its been a red-link for a long time) then removing them may be ok.

I've no issue with their removal and given its now been explained am happy to undo the revision I made save you having to repeat the work you'd already done. Amortias (T)(C) 16:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. The problem is, there is no way of knowing whether there will ever be an article written for the hyperlinked subject (in this case, past Coronation Street characters) so they may stay like that forever.146.198.113.221 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that can be the case in many of these situations. As an aside - the only reason I came across these edits was because of the high volume of edits being carried out it triggered a warning on one of the lists I watch, if you are thinking of making these large scale changes then feel free to do so but if you do include an edit summary on the page would hopefully prevent others from being over-cautious as there's quite a few people monitoring the log that I picked this up on. "Could be something as simple as removing excess redlinks" or however you'd care to phrase it. Amortias (T)(C) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Again. I apologize. I will try and make it clearer from now on.146.198.113.221 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologise for something no-one had told you about, the instruction manuals for this place are "lengthy and contradictory" in more than one place. Good luck with your editing going forward. Amortias (T)(C) 16:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Very kind of you. I will make it clearer.146.198.113.221 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

---