Talk:This Is It

From a discussion on a user talk page:

Hi, your removal of a red link (strangely, only one of two) from the This Is It disambiguation page is surely based on some official Wikipedia policy (WP:RRLFDP) I'm not aware of, but I'd be interested to learn why we should want to withhold information from potential users seeking knowledge even if there is no article on the novel yet.

By comparison, looking at the List of programs broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation I was tempted to AfD the whole page which practically consists of red links only but abstained from doing so because I supposed (and still do) that those who had put them there knew what they were doing.

So again: Why, and, in particular, why the one and not the other? And what would you do if I put it back again? Or would you prefer to see a one-line stub on the novel so that there is no red link any more?

Best wishes, &lt;KF&gt; 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page's sole purpose is to allow users to select an existing article from a list of choices that exist on Wikipedia when the search term entered in the search box could refer to two or more different choices. See WEP. While one would normally be looking for Wired Equivalent Privacy, the wireless security standard that would be moved to BJAODN if it was not a real security standard because it is so easily broken, one could be looking for War emergency power. As for the other red link, I missed it. I have just removed it. An article that is intended to be a list is a different matter. Lists should not have their members hyperlinked unless those members have articles. Jesse Viviano 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I may refer you to Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29. And yes, I am confident that an article on the novel will be written. Who says that "a disambiguation page's sole (!) purpose is to allow users to select an existing article from a list of choices that exist on Wikipedia when the search term entered in the search box could refer to two or more different choices"? Honestly, I'm rather fed up whenever I encounter people who are actively trying to prevent others from learning something. You haven't answered any of my questions. Once again, I'd be interested to learn why we should want to withhold information from potential users seeking knowledge. And what would you do if I put back the links?


 * I do not fail to understand that copyvios need harsh judgement and immediate removal from Wikipedia, whether this concerns text or images. But disambiguation pages? Are you going to remove all the red links from pages like Miller (disambiguation) or Miller (surname) (thousands of others available)?


 * I'm going to copy this discussion onto Talk:This Is It so that others can join in if they want. All the best, &lt;KF&gt; 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have made a mistake. It seems that they should be allowed if someone is going to write an article about the item in a short amount of time. However, I feel that red links in disambiguation pages should be removed if an article on that item is not started within the week that the red link is posted. We do not want to confuse visitors to Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A one-week time frame seems harsh and rather unrealistic. A better gauge is to check to see how many other pages link to that term and a general Google Test. If there are more than a few other pages that link to a term or if it has some degree of notability as roughly gauged by Google, there is a fair chance 1) that the page will get created sooner or later and 2) that someone sooner or later will create new links to the undisambiguated term intended the redlinked meaning, in which case a mention on the disambiguation page is helpful, especially if it also contains a blue link to a related term. On the other hand, if there are no other articles that link to the term and it fails a basic Google test (and as is often the case, was added by an anon IP with few other edits), then there is little reason to keep such a redlink. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is reason to believe that an article will be written, then let the link be. Some day, someone will write the article. Keeping the redlink there may inspire some visitor to write that article when they find no one else has done it yet. If the redlink was deleted, the next reader to come along may see that something is missing from the list and go on a goose-chase to figure out where the article is -- only to discover there is no such article. For these reasons, redlinks are important placeholders, in my opinion. - grubber 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)