User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2024

List of Russula species
Can you point me to the policy and/or guideline to support your contentious claim that the use of more than 1000 red links in a single article is ? — Isaidnoway (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Isaidnoway, each red-link in the article is unique. Each red-link points to a notable subject that could conceivably be developed into an article. The magnitude of the total red-links in the list article only reflects the highly speciose nature of the genus and not any mis-application of the use of red-links. As an experienced editor, I am sure you are already familiar with WP:RED and do not need to place templated tags on list articles suggesting that they "may" need cleanup. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REDLINK — Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon. I did a check and found, and then . That length of time does not equate to created soon. And fast forward to 2024 and now there are over 1000 red links. So yes, they may need clean up per the advice at Template:Cleanup red links. So I will be placing the cleanup tag back in the article. As an experienced editor, I am sure you already know that placing a cleanup tag in an article puts it into a category where other editors can see it, and then they can help with improving the article, you've heard of many hands make light work. And per the instructions at maintenance template removal — It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK doesn't say use redlinks only if the article will be created soon. It says if they "will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable". The latter applies to species articles. WP:REDLINK also says "remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject". —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The full sentence you refer to in WP:REDLINK is "Add red links to articles 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." - the latter clause is what applies here.
 * For the first clause, completion of Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Even if over 90% of these red-linked topics are likely to never be completed within our lifetimes, it is still correct to red-link them. Unlike a regular article, the use of many red links in a list article does not interrupt or impair the reading as it would do in a block of text. In a genus list article, the species links are navigational aids to the species articles once they are created. The red colour also helps in allowing readers and editors assess which articles already exist.
 * In this case, the addition of the maintenance tag was not warranted as the only "maintenance" that could be done would be the generation of new species-level articles, something which is best done deliberately and not in the mass-generation of one-line stubs devoid of any further detail. Placing the tag on the list article was incorrect as there is no further maintenance needed to the article. Removal of these red-links would be detrimental to the article.
 * Since you boldly added the tag, and I subsequently reverted this addition, now is the time to discuss the validity of your edit before you decide to add it back. A wider discussion on the article talk page may be necessary to gain consensus for any eventual change.
 * Loopy30 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Notifying as well, since he they replied here. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have assumed that s pronouns are he/him and I apologize for that. Isaidnoway (talk)</b> 18:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)