Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-02/Adding Redlinks

Where is the dispute?
The articles where the user has been dead end page patrolling. See "adding links" in her contributions.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Katharineamy
 * User:Morgankevinj

What is the dispute?
While Katharineamy in making a good faith edits in patrolling dead end pages. She is continuing to add redlinks to articles after the issue was discussed on her talk page: User_talk:Katharineamy and User_talk:Katharineamy

What would you like to change about this?
I want Katharineamy to be more careful in dead end page patrolling by using the preview button to avoid adding redlinks.
 * In one of the specific examples that you pointed out, this one, it appears that Katharineamy is linking to articles that should be created in the future. For example, there should be an article on the Yugoslavian Foreign Service in the future, so linking to it isn't a problem. Netalarm talk 03:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take comments on board, but I don't believe that redlinks are intrinsically bad, as Netalarm said. I don't add links to words that plainly have no potential use as an article. Katharineamy (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the purpose of redlinks. So it is okay to close this case. So redlinks should be made to a topic as long as it notable. Am I correct? Morgan Kevin J (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, redlinks may be used when the subject of the article is notable and will most likely get an article in the future. From Red link, "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text 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 it would be notable and verifiable." and "Only make links that are relevant to the context. Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." Marking case as closed as a result of a misunderstanding of redlinks. Netalarm talk 06:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
I have not been involved in a dispute on Wikipedia, so I need to know how to proceed.

Mediator notes

 * Not sure this needs mediation, but will contact users. Netalarm talk 03:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed as a result of a misunderstanding of redlinks and when they should be used. Netalarm talk 06:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)