User:Yomangani/Red not dead

Redlinks get a bad press. We see comments like Too many redlinks, Please remove redlinks, Removed link to article which doesn't exist, Removed redlink (can be readded when article is created). Some people even think redlinks in an article are a valid reason to oppose a Featured Article nomination (they are not) Despite this, redlinks are not bad. Misunderstood maybe, but not bad.

Red was a poor choice of colour. Purple, green , or brown links probably wouldn't get the same attention. We don't like red, but that doesn't stop redlinks being a useful feature.


 * Some of the reasons normally given to justify the removal of redlinks:
 * The article doesn't exist.
 * So what? When it does exist it will have a ready-made link to it from the article in question. (Build the web)


 * People will click on it expecting to find an article.
 * Most people won't click on it. It's a fairly simple learning process to begin to associate redlinks with missing articles. If you don't get it straight away, a couple of clicks will reveal the difference between redlinks and bluelinks. We even tell you at the top of the page: Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact title[...]


 * The red is distracting
 * Perhaps other people are distracted by blue, or citations, or the table of contents. If you don't like red you can change your CSS (see Help:User style), or change your user preferences (on the Misc tab you can format redlinks to appear with a following question mark instead of as red text. Just uncheck "Format broken links like this (alternative: like this?)").


 * There are too many redlinks in the article
 * How many is that? And which ones are you going to remove? Too many redlinks in an article means that the topic area is probably in need of some attention, and a redlinks are good way of indicating this.


 * The link can be put back when the article is created
 * And who is going to do that? You? Are you going to keep a list of all the redlinks you removed and check regularly to see if the article has been created so you can return the link you removed? How long are you going to be around? Perhaps the article's other editors should do that on your behalf? They can patrol all the pages they've edited to see if somebody has removed a redlink, note it down and follow the steps you would have carried out if you hadn't left.

The only valid reasons for removing a redlink as far as I can see are:
 * 1) the article will never be created
 * 2) the redlink is a low value link in the context of the article (The sky was sky-blue). A bluelink here would be equally pointless.
 * 3) the redlink violates some BLP concern (...who might have an overly-friendly relationship with hamsters, see Speculation about Mr. Redlink's sexuality). In this case, as in 2 above, a bluelink would be equally inappropriate.

...and a more debatable reasons for a removing a redlink:
 * 1) the article has consistently been deleted every time it has been created. Redlinks from other articles would suggest that the article is needed, so why it has been consistently deleted needs examining before the redlink is removed.


 * Why redlinks in articles are a good thing:
 * They indicate that an article is missing. If the text is not linked a reader doesn't know whether the article is missing or just not linked.
 * They indicate that you can create a new article on a subject that is required in the context of at least one other article
 * A proliferation of redlinks in an article normally indicate a topic area in need of attention
 * They provide a ready made link to an article once it is created, and so remove the requirement for the creator of a new article to trawl through the encyclopedia looking for articles that should link to the new article they just created.


 * Some bad ways of dealing with redlinks:
 * Creating a stub. A stub that tells us little more than what is in the article is far worse than having a redlink:
 * It gives the impression that an article worth reading is behind the blue link. There is no indicator of quality attached to a blue link, it doesn't get bluer depending on how good the article is, so people will click on it expecting to find an article (see "Some of the reasons normally given to justify the removal of redlinks" above), and will be wasting their time.
 * Creating a stub removes the thrill of creating an article for those who are thrilled by creating an article
 * A redlink is a clear indicator that the article needs to be created, whereas any article behind a bluelink can be in any state between a one-line, poorly written, unreferenced stub and the cream of featured articles. Looking for articles that need improving by clicking on the links in articles you are interested in is far more time consuming than just looking for redlinks. By creating a stub you are making life more difficult for the people who have the knowledge and desire to produce a comprehensive article.
 * Redirecting to a similar topic. This suggests the redlinked article doesn't need to be created, and removes the potential link if and when the redlinked article is created


 * A good way of dealing with redlinks:
 * Create a well-written, comprehensive, referenced article.