Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:Red link
Latest comment: 3 years ago by CapnZapp in topic Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Time to update the guideline

Latest comment: 7 years ago57 comments15 people in discussion

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

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to me as that the other editor cannot use the guideline as the basis for his edits because your feel the guideline is outdated, is that right?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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Disagree: Redlink policy as is works adequately; further, it is extremely helpful to have redlinks when a new article on a topic is created, particularly where an article creator is saved the time of having to add the link to dozens of articles. One recent example is Irad Ortiz Jr., a jockey who met the WP:Horseracing SNG for quite some time, but no one got around to creating his article until last year. When the article was created, there were at least about 50 links that went live when the article did. A classic example of why redlinks are needed. It is also a waste of editor time and resources to have an AfD before there is even an "A" created. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree It may be perfectly reasonabe to create (and leave alone) a red link to a topic that in the end would be a redirect to a section in a broader article. A red link merely indicates information is required on a subject, not that it must be the topic of an entire article. This guideline (it is not a policy) could be written with greater clarity. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Where does this apply?

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

"Linking persons"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Discrepancy in guidelines

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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

We've had this discussion before, and this viewpoint never gets consensus. The development of the encyclopedia takes precedence over a handful of editors having an aesthetic issue with redlinks, which they're welcome to fix on their own end with Javascript or a similar approach. For everyone else, there are no cons to marking the (notable) articles which still need writing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the request is to harmonize the two, not to make changes to either to avoid redlinks completely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Daask was advocating changing this guideline to legitimise aesthetic reasons for removing redlinks rather than only removing them for non-notability, rather than fixing the out-of-sync MoS page. This is a non-starter (how many times do we have to establish there is no consensus for it?) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is typically useful to link to the prior discussions, so that we might educate ourselves on the points for/against made earlier. Where are those? --Izno (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: - It sounds like you're saying that there is clear consensus in favor of Wikipedia:Red link over Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links. If so, I gladly suggest that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Red links be modified accordingly and will leave it at that. Daask (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Likely to be created v. Notable?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

What is "excessive"

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

The Tom Mueller example

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request 22 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

  Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

I don't necessarily think it's a problem if there are Red Links to files - how else can you alert other editors that valid, license compatible images exist for a particular topic? I am thinking in particular of lists where a large repository of US government images exist, but each image must be individually downloaded and it might be difficult for one person to do alone. This prohibition seems to have initially been added in January of 2014 via WP:BOLD, so there's no record of what anybody else thinks, but I don't think a blanket prohibition makes sense. While Category:Articles with missing files is listed as the reasoning for no redlinks to files, maybe that category doesn't make sense either, especially since it has outlived the only wikiproject watching it, WP:IM. I think a more sensible patrol category is Category:Articles with missing files without file request templates. -Furicorn (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: who has been going through that category. Red-links to images are normally typos or because of file deletions, or are to arbitrary names that don't make clear what content is wanted. I don't see how the specific example you give is served by redlinks; a template noting that an image is requested or a place-holder image of the correct size will fit the page better and make it clear what content is requested. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok so it sounds like there are definitely 3 categories of redlinks to files that would be good to avoid -
  1. redlinks due to typos (solution: fix typo)
  2. redlinks to unclear/arbitrary names (solution: request a clearer name)
  3. redlinks on an article without a file request template (my suggestion, solution: add a file request template)
Case 1 sounds like a rule that makes sense, "If you get a redlink to an image, check for typos". Case 2 seems harder to make a rule about, but I understand the spirit of it. I think it should be fine to create redlinks to files as long as the naming is clear and there is a file request template applied. To get more specific about my example, Water Resource Region and the subregions available (example: Lower Mississippi Water Resource Region) in the table all have freely available USGS images, but the images are a bit tedious to upload. Therefore, I created redlinks to the files to encourage others to contribute (didn't know about requests templates at the time), and to follow a particular naming convention. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to signal to other users that their contribution is welcome, and to suggest the naming convention for the contribution. There are quite a few images in the category commons:Category:Hydrologic Unit Code maps of the United States and I think it's helpful to minimize the number of image naming conventions for these images. -Furicorn (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The intro to the guideline is short and sweet in this regard "Articles should not contain red links to files", and WP:REDNO says outright "Do not create red links to files." That does not leave much room for in the spirit of the law-interpretations. Would a change in the guideline allowing for redlinked files result in a better encyclopædia for the reader?
The case at hand deals with three regions of Water Resource Region, one being Lower Mississippi Water Resource Region. It was created in main space one month ago on 9 August, and had the table added on the 13th with 6 out of 9 subregion maps missing. How should any other editor without prior knowledge to the subject know where to go and get these files and upload them even if the more generic {{map requested}} had been posted on the article talk page concurrently? Which it was not. Earlier this evening with the info posted by OP exclusively to Talk:Great Lakes Water Resource Region I downloaded the six maps missing in Lower Mississippi Water Resource Region and uploaded them to Commons. It took me 15 minutes. Sam Sailor 23:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It makes sense to prohibit redlinks, even in the case that an article should exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm just learning about WP:REDNO and the various {{media request templates}} from Sam Sailor (talk · contribs). I am glad that they were able to quickly upload the images, and since it takes me a while to do that many images maybe they would be willing to show me if there are some tools or tricks they use that I can learn. Unfortunately they were unable to give me a rationale for this portion of WP:REDNO, beyond directing me to the discussion archives. Since I couldn't find any archived discussions on the topic, I believe all we have to go on is what's written on the project page, and some best efforts guess based on the edit history. I am glad we are having the discussion now. I see that there is definitely a maximalist "no red links" position, and I guess there might theoretically be a competing maximalist "every red link is sacred" position, although I doubt anyone holds it. I feel like my position is fairly reasonable. Generally, no red links to files, but if you signal that you need files and provide some explanatory information it should be fine. Ideally a template would exist that would allow us to do that, but unfortunately it seems like all we have to use are the various {{media request templates}}. In the absence of a more specific template, I would like to incorporate what was said above and say that the requirement to have red links to files should be a {{media request templates}} and a talk entry explaining where to find the images. Optionally the editor could explain why they haven't put the images in, but I can see several disability reasons why, so I don't feel like we necessarily need to obligate them. -Furicorn (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • comment As someone who has fixed tens of thousands of issues with file red-links over several years I would disagree with the premiss - a red-link in an article does not in anyway "alert other editors that valid, license compatible images exist" unlike a content redlink that gives information about an actual subjects name a file name gives little to no information to if an image exists at all, if suitably licensed or where to find it. The majority of issues flagged in Category:Articles with missing files are obvious errors, typos, hot-linking attempts, users correcting text in file names, deleted files (those left after 3 bots try to fix), users 'desires' an image did exist, etc. If a case such as described existed "a large repository of US government images exist" why would someone add the file names, but not create the files, or a suitable request, and how is anyone seeing the red-link supposed know the image exists somewhere for downloading?
  • My key point would be a content red-link gives the reader information, a file-red link gives no information and is just a distraction. Who would like other websites/magazines etc having what is in affect just a placeholder that just says "we wanted an image here, but could not find one". Saying Mr A Redlink created a company Redlink Inc still conveys the name of the person and company, but File:Mr A Redlink.jpg and File:Redlink Inc HQ.jpg give the reader no information about what they look like of were the images may exist. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • To address why one might not always download all the images, I usually create these tables in excel, where I autogenerate the string value for the file name. I don't know ahead of time which ones will have an image and which ones won't. Once I know how many images there are, its a slow process for me to download and add them all to commons. So it is helpful for me to be able to upload the images and then not have to edit the table again. If I hear you correctly, your main complaint is that red links alone are not enough information for other editors or readers. I hear that complaint, so taking that into consideration I think a {{media request templates}} and information on where to source the images should be required to allow red links to files. -Furicorn (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone object to me opening a separate section as an RfC? I'm a little new to wikipedia policy discussion processes, so I'm learning as I go. -Furicorn (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support The idea that one can be punished for creating an article with red links is outrageous and should repealed completely.
Here's a fresh example of why such links may be appropriate or unavoidable. I recently created several articles in a batch as part of the 6 million sprint. These included Great Asby Scar, Sunbiggin Tarn and Castle Folds – places of special scientific interest and a scheduled monument which are quite respectable and notable. Because they are related and these topics are neglected, there are cross-references between them and other topics which have yet to be created. Such a group naturally forms red-links because items in the set have to be loaded sequentially and this takes time. The same applies to categories and images. For example, I found a free image of Castle Folds but did not want to load it first because I load images into Wikipedia, rather than commons, and images get deleted from Wikipedia if they are not used in articles. The same applies to categories where these are new such as category:Glacial lakes of England. I found some red-linked categories when I was testing these various drafts. They made sense to me as they were equivalent to categories for other counties or countries but I removed them from the drafts rather than have any hassle. Generally, I find categories to be a nuisance and, if it's the case that using a red-linked category is a hanging offense then I'll do without categories altogether rather than run any unnecessary risks.
Another factor is that my work was disrupted by a browser crash and so I'm still redoing some of the pages which I had prepared. Accidents and interruptions may naturally leave work incomplete but, per WP:CHOICE, this should not be an issue because Wikipedia is voluntary work and it is policy that our work may be imperfect. Perfectionism and punishment is quite inappropriate and is taking a significant toll on our volunteers. I found that the pace of article creation for the 6M milestone was noticeably slow and sedate compared to the 5M milestone in 2015. We have suffered significant attrition and demotivation of our volunteers in the last 5 years and the signs are everywhere. Creepy rules like this are a significant cause so let's roll this one back, please.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems like you're primarily talking about categories, whereas this thread is about files. What is the reason for creating redlinks to files? The only line about files in this post seems to be a complaint that you want Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons to be our free media repository of images not currently used in articles... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about files and categories and other types of redlinks, which inevitably arise when creating a related set of topics. Wikipedia is a repository of files and I regularly upload files into it. Some files, such as non-free images must be loaded into Wikipedia because Commons won't accept them. And, as explained, there might be good reasons why the file can't be loaded immediately. If a redlink persists and seems to have become orphaned then it can be dealt with by some routine housekeeping. In the meantime, content creators should be free to work on complex sets of topics in whatever order they please. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, we shouldn't have redlinks to files. There's just no reason to. A redlink to an article (or even to a category) creates an opportunity to create that article with a couple clicks. A redlink to a file says, what, that I should put on my detective hat, google that filename, hope I find the one you're talking about, hope it's still called the same thing, determine whether it's freely available or assume you already did, upload it and use it? If you've already done the work of finding a file that can be used, either upload it, or note it on the talk page with more information than a redlink can provide. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Timothy Grigalanz

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So this guy, I've been trying to learn more about him. His name is timothy grigalanz, he is a white nationalist leader with a group to boot, the National Socialist Worker's Party of Indiana. Any help would be appreciated for my research Jonny.doe997 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

Is there a way to count the total # of redlinks in a wikipedia, specifically, w:mr?

I had asked this question a year (more?) ago and was shot down as why do you want to know, it's useless, Not a good indicator of anything, paraphrased. I'm hoping I get a better answer this time or pointers on how to create a mechanism to get the #.

Thanks!

अभय नातू (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Admin, 'crat w:mr

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I expect this to be a red link as that page doesn't exists, but it's not showing,neither on the article does. It only shows "This page has not been created", what happened? User3749 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are on mobile, there is a known issue currently where red links display as blue. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. --Izno (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You can follow the task that is currently going on to repair it here. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have come across several articles that have contained red links for an extended period of time, the least being months and some for even a few years. Is there a time threshold for when it's appropriate to get rid of red links? Is it okay to have articles with high readership with red links? I'm just trying to understand when it's appropriate to keep red links in articles. There have been several times where I see editors add red links to different articles noting that they'll come back soon to create the article and the red links are there for a long period of time. Is fine to delete them or no? Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I always inspect incoming links to red links and try to find them in other Wikipedias. If both turn up nothing, I remove the link. If there's an article in another Wikipedia, I use {{ill}} to link to that. If it's not in another Wikipedia but there are several incoming links, I keep the red link. The length of time doesn't come into it – WP:There is no deadline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Edit1: Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the lede.

Draft articles are not redlinks, they could be added to the wikipedia articles as blue links with piping or even without it.

Rationale: This will enhance the clarity and will appropriately guide the editors, especially for the IPs and registered occasional editors who comprise over 99% of the editors and create majority of the content. Editors with registered accounts who are heavy users of wikipedia likely account less than 0.1% of all the editors and likely contribute less than 5% (at best 10%) of all valid content as major chunk of their time is consumed by the maintenance and bureaucratic issues such as anti-vandalism patrolling, enforcement of policies and regulations, responding to noticeboard and projects issues. Only these small number of editors engage in the lengthy and heated debates, most IPs and occasional editors usually walk away from the topic or from the wikipedia itself. Guidelines and policies must be geared towards the core stakeholder, "non-heavy editors" (i.e. IPs and occasional editors) are the core and most important editors are they create and consume the majority of valid content. Inclusion of the phrase above will eliminate the subjectivity related to the grey area within which draft article exist. This will reduce any discussions related to removal of "wikipedia links to draft articles" from the wikipedia articles by the over enthusiastic "heavy editors" many of whom love to get entangled in heavy debates, which usually drives IPs and non-heavy editors away from the wikipedia.

Clearly defining wikipedia links to draft article within wikipedia articles as "not the redlink" is a good practice. In that case, draft articles could be included in the "see also" sections too, and those will be considered valid edits (not treated as MOS:NOTSEEALSO. This way IPs and occasional editors, who made the edit and walked away for a long gap, their edits will remain within wikipedia without being removed. This will also alert readers to the existence of the draft who could benefit by reading the draft and they can also enhance the draft. Also, removal of links to draft articles by zealous "heavy-user editors" takes an effort, those draft articles kind of become lost to most other readers, and in future it needs more rework to add those links back to the articles once the draft has been approved. This wastes too much time and effort. Treating even un-piped links to drafts as valid edits will make the edits future-proof, eliminate time wasted in removal and re-adding, enhances the chances of drafts being noticed by more readers and editors who could benefit form the additional knowledge and they will be more likely to add value to wikipedia by enhancing the drafts. Just use commonsense. There have been instances where zealous "heavy-use editors" have removed such links to "see also", thus antagonising/driving away IPs and occasional editors, leading to waste of effort and time due to work and rework, and this also leaves wikipedia linkage-poor and content-poor.

Wikipedia links to draft article within wikipedia articles might appear as red in color but once someone clicks on them, it takes the reader to a blue link draft, hence it is not a read link in the "spirit" of the word. The word redlink must be interpreted in a way which does not negate the work of occasional editors and IP, so that those are not removed from the article or "see also" as redlink by the heavy editors. Alternatively, to satisfy the very pedantic "heavy-user editors" the links to draft articles can be included with piping.

Alternative solution: In case, someone strongly feels against the inclusion of this edit, then at least add it as a "note" to the end of first paragraph of the lede so that this explanation will still appear in the notes of this article.

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK and established procedure, an article should not link to a draft article. Drafts and sandboxes are not subject to the same scrutiny as articles and they may be hoaxes or otherwise totally wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


Johnuniq, Main purpose of this edit was to amend the MOS:DRAFTNOLINK itself. The "MOS:DRAFTNOLINK" and "WP:Red link" articles form a circular reference to justify each other's deficiencies, hence need to be amended. That is why, I have also left an "edit request at MOS talkpage".

The "submitted draft" articles (available for the same public scrutiny as the articles in the main namespace and awaiting a move to the main namespace) are not in same category as the "sandbox articles" (private work-in-progress of an individual editor which is not yet available and complete enough for the scrutiny and the move to main namespace). If there is a redlink with a link to the "existing submitted draft article" which has not been "rejected", then the redlink must be retained. Redlink could be removed only if the draft has been rejected. Hoaxes or otherwise totally wrong articles must be "immediately" removed. Retaining the red links with draft articles will improve the likelihood of hoaxes etc being spotted/removed faster by a largest pool of readers/editors. Removing the "red links with draft articles" will harm the wikipedia more by keeping the hoax articles longer on wikipedia with lesser chances of those being spotted. Additionally, as highlighted previously, retaining the red links to the submitted draft articles will minimize rework, etc.

I remind again, think from the perspective of those 99% "non-heavy editors" (who create majority of the wikipedia content and want pragmatic future-proof policies, and they usually get turned off and walk away from the wikipedia/time-wasting pedantic arguments), not from the perspective of the "heavy-use editors" (many of whom tend to monopolize wikipedia, love to indulge in the pedantic legalese which wastes too much time and turns occasional editors away). People can always find ways to justify/oppose what they want to. If we try to find a pragmatic solution which favors the most important contributors (non-heavy-use editors), we will find it.

Even bigger problem is that the "non-heavy-use editors" quietly walk off the wikipedia (they rarely make suggestion as this one and usually do not stay back to deal with the headache of debating these changes), and those who oppose these suggestions/edits are usually the "heavy-use editors" (they are the part of the problem this suggestion/edit is trying to preempt/fix).

Please apply this edit. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, I take it to be relatively a minor change which eliminates the subjective grey area and abuse by the argumentative alpha editors. This should be done with minimal fuss. The whole point of my edit was to minimize those kind of discussions/arguments. I understand the unstated nuances very well. With this proposed edit, since I am challenging the alpha mindset and informal privileges, there will be push back. My concerns have been already documented by numerous other editors Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great.

Johnuniq, thanks for showing the WP:VPR, I might leave a short note there, but I am not too sure yet if I want to do that yet. Let me read first how VPR works. If it is just a short message, I will leave a note there and then permanently walk away from there. I am weary of starting another fire/debate there and then get dragged into it. I come to wikipedia to de-stress by reading and editing. I really hate the pedantic debates on wikipedia which stress me out. I then usually walk away from those debates to take a break from wikipedia for few weeks, i.e. loss of pleasure and my contribution/productivity to wikipedia. Meanwhile, I like your second suggestion regarding MOS. I will leave it to editors on MOS:DRAFTNOLINK talk page to apply that edit there. If they decide to apply the edit there, then it is still good enough for me even if the edit is not applied here. I will not be monitoring that talk page any more. In case they decide to not apply the edit, and instead want to nitpick, debate, etc, so be it. I think time for me to just leave it to other editors. I must stop investing more time in this discussion and walk away from the all talkpages/discussion related to this. Que sera sera. Thanks once again for the VPR and especially the 2nd suggestion, because your suggestions helped me make up my mind. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Draft articles are of unknown quality/truthfulness/notability/neutrality and linking to them has been repeatedly used as a way of adding PoV content, trivia and blatant vandalism to Wikipedia. As a review can take 3 months, or longer. this proposal would allow unvetted "information" to be linked to directly from our articles for a very considerable period of time. Very few readers will notice the "Draft" in the title of the linked article, and of those that do, many will not understand the implications of it. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Arjayay, current system you want to retain favors very tiny number of editors who like to live on wikipedia day in and day out, unfortunately they control the guidelines, policies, voting on those. Not very user friendly system to the majority of the editors, who are not here as frequently, they make edits and submit draft and link the other article and gone. They do not come back to re do the work and link the articles months later. That is how "majority" of the editors behave. System must cater to them. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Since you provided the suggestions, I feel out of courtesy I owed you an update. I took both your suggestions, left a "specific proposal" at MOS:DRAFTNOLINK talk page here, and also a more general concern with wider audience at the Village Pump here. I will not be monitoring any of these talkpages, here or those other places. I feel I have done enough to highlight the concern, now time for me to leave it to the community to decide whatever they want to do with it. Thanks again. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

To provide a resolution to this should links break: The Manual of Style/Linking discussion ended with   Not done for now and was furthermore Opposed by every participating editor. The Village Pump discussion was met with the response You can link to the article without the Draft: prefix. Once the draft is accepted, the red link will become blue. The Manual of Style/Layout discussion was also Not done for now citing lack of consensus. I have left a talk message with this effect on 58.182.176.169's talk page since they specifically do not monitor this page. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_6&oldid=1084181006"