Wikipedia talk:Red link

How to red link a person that has the same name as one listed.
I attempted to red-link a person that does not have a Wikipedia article, but instead it blue-links to someone else of the same name who does have an article. Is there a workaround? Conjunctio (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See Red link (or, if someone changes or deletes this heading, Red link). I've just created this subsection and rewritten the text, but the general content was there before. Basically, link Tom Mueller (writer) instead of Tom Mueller You can use a pipe (vertical bar) so that only the name os displayed to readers; Tom Mueller displays as "Tom Mueller". HTH, Pol098 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"African eleephant" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_eleephant&redirect=no African eleephant], the canonical example of an extremely unlikely typo here from July 2011 to November 2019, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. —Cryptic 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP rules
@Up the Walls changed the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a telephone game in which we oversimplify and misstate the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).

Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of WP:BLP1E" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station or Right-handed blue-green widgets". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote WP:REDBIO to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for WP:BLP apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section WP:REDBIO discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? Up the Walls (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
 * Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or MOS:BIO); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates Tom Mueller when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick Tom Mueller (author) as to pick Tom Mueller (writer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it less more likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".
 * However, condition #2 in WP:REDBIO says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "How likely can the person meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link." To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. Up the Walls (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I meant less likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it less likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks.  Imagine that you make a red link to Alice (expert).   Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name.  Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan.  If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
 * For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the non-BLP subject meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I have reverted the WP:REDBIO section to the previous version that was available on . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Red user name
I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. 49.185.89.67 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-)
The current text says:
 * In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject.

I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.

I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)