User talk:KittyFan2004

Redlinks
Hello KittyFan2004,

I see you've removed a number of "redlinks" from articles recently. I'm wondering if there is a particular reason behind this. Wikipedia's policy on linking to as-yet-uncreated content is not hard and fast, but the guidelines at WP:REDLINK generally favor leaving redlinks where they point to an article that could reasonably be created in future, and removing them where that's not the case.

In this edit I came across, you had removed a redlink to the 18th-century newspaper The Gazetteer. This change doesn't seem to fit the guidelines, as we typically do regard newspapers as notable subjects for articles. In another case you removed redlinks to three species of Pelargonium from an article about the newly described South African moth Holocacista varii. My understanding is that Wikipedia regards all biological species as notable, and it seems appropriate to me that the moth article should provide redlinks to articles on food plants not yet covered by Wikipedia. As people create articles on those species, the links will turn blue and add value to the moth article without requiring an additional edit.

I do understand that you may see redlinks as "ugly", but I'd urge you to mentally recast them as invitations for interested readers to become editors and expand the encyclopedia's coverage.

For me, the best, easy way to deal with redlinks is to see if there is in fact an article or a section of one that the link could point to. In the case of The Gazetteer, the newspaper actually has an article under one of its earlier names that is a good target for the link. Alternatively, it's always possible to create a stub article yourself to address the missing topic. Failing that, if a redlink reflects a topic that Wikipedia could reasonably cover, it's best just to leave it be, and wait for a future reader to be inspired to create the article.

I don't at all mean to discourage you from working to improve articles; I just wanted to draw your attention to how redlinks are typically handled. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)