Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 1

POV text

 * I moved the following POV text posted by Information-Ecologist from the article to here. It presents one person's viewpoint and does not belong in the actual article. -- Cyrius 04:21, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Clicking on a "red" link - in truth, more of an orange red, not to be confused with a bluish red followed link - leads the Wikipedian to an Edit page for a new definition of the word or phrase in red. This provides little of value to the person who reaches the page, and contributors are generally discouraged from making use of red links.

Value of alternative construction
The lack of value of red links - combined with the value of exploring definitions that have not yet been created in Wikipedia - has led to an ad hoc implementation at collective intelligence agency and information ecology of a proposed alternative construction of the red link as a search link, as in the following example: information habitat - created with the following code:

 information habitat 

The code has the effect of directing one to Wikipedia's search page for the words contained in the link, arguably the optimal place within Wikipedia from which to explore the use or meaning of the words.

This would appear to offer substantially more of value both to those who are browsing Wikipedia and to contributors to Wikipedian definitions. The value of this alternative construction is that it leads to a search of Wikipedia's body of knowledge rather than to a relatively worthless ghost page.

But red links allow the _creation_ of new knowledge - it is through a red link that a new page is made. Your proposal would cause the encyclopedia to stagnate as no new pages could be made. Secretlondon 20:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Red links invite contribution
MediaWiki by default ships with the behaviour that a Go search on a term that does not exist simply says "There is no such article" and returns a list of search results. Note that this is different than the behaviour of WikiMedia projects, as a result of changing MediaWiki:Nogomatch to include a red link to a page with the same name as the search terms. This seems to have been done to increase, rather than decrease, the ability of people to create new articles.

But if so why does MW ship without this useful feature? Well, according to MW developer Brion, (as quoted at Create_page_after_search_not_found), this is because:

''...[T]raditionally wikis are an exploratory medium; you find pages through links from other pages or RecentChanges. creation of new pages is something that's to be done in context, by editing a page to create a link.''

Clearly Wikism (and MW's model) is pro-redlink. Anti-redlink policy and practice is unWikian. The whole notion of Wikism is to empower and encourage the user to contribute. Bringing a user to a dead page via the advance warning of a redlink can encourage contribution. Eliminating redlinks reduces ability and tendency for new contribution.

It would be very easy for Wiki software to simply not activate dead links (i.e. don't link red links at all). But on the contrary, it does, for this very reason.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussions from Only make links that are relevant to the context
Discussions moved from Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

Red links
I filed myself as an opponent of this guideline above, but only because the guideline for some reason discourages the creation of red links.

1. Red links shouldn't be part of this guideline. This guideline is about "Only make links that are relevant to the context". If someone thinks there's a problem with creating red links, make it a separate guideline.

2. Red links are great. They are a hook that new Wikipedians often use to start their very first article. The "Most requested articles" list serves the same purpose. They remind us this is a work in progress.

Also, the example about the link to "United States" isn't a good one; I'll try improving it now.

Tempshill 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the opposite opinion to Tempshill other than perhaps agreeing that redlinks could be it's own separate guideline. For me ...


 * 1. Redlinks make any article look clumsy and unfinished.
 * 2. Editors and contributors who are interested in a primary article monitor that article and go back and forth into the original to link and pipelink to relevant subsidiary articles that they either write or find.
 * 3. This back and forth step can not be understated because it (a) seeks constant monitoring of the primary article and (b) removes the compulsion for contributors especially new contributors to write small stub like responses to redlinks that are often either poorly named (through lack of research) or previously written under another name - thus disjointing the encyclopaedia. For example if I link this paragraph:  Sydney; Australia was favoured to be the host of the 2000, Olympic Games during the last year of the second millenium or if you prefer the first year of the third millenium - I set up a number of valid and invalid links that confuse poor punctuation (let's face it there is plenty of that through wiki, through commonwealth versus non-commonwealth spelling, and topic conjuction in one form versus another form somewhere on wiki.
 * 4. Timing is the issue - redlinks are okay for a week or two - maybe a month - but many contributors start an article add redlinks and then for months never come back - nor will they.
 * 5. For those of us that remove what otherwise appear to be valid future links - but are currently redlinks we should (and do in my case) check to see when the redlinks were created and if they are older than a few weeks then remove, or if they are trivial then remove them at any time.VirtualSteve 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion. This is not policy. There is a fundamental difference. Ambi 05:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What in heavens name is wrong now Ambi. Did I say it was policy?  This Wikitalk page is an opinion page.  Have a look at the top of the page it says exactly that it is a collection of opinions.  Can you please stop pointing your gun at every one that has a different opinion than you - better still seeing you nominate yourself as an administrator can you please tell me who I complain to about your fair policing and the steps for formulating that complaint - by return message please? VirtualSteve 06:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tempshill. Redlinks are great for encouraging creation of useful articles. ··gracefool |☺ 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redlinks that have been created through a genuine inability to find an already existing article are a sign that a redirect should probably be created (and the red link pointed to the correct place), not that the term should not be linked. --Martyman- (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless there's no article on the subject... ··gracefool |☺ 07:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that red links are largely tangential to this guideline. I think we need a guideline that talks about not creating spurious and stupid links - let's talk about how we can make this guideline into that, not get rid of it. Oh, and Nandesuka, Ambi is female. Deco 08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if anyone wants my opinion on red links: in an encyclopedia of this size they're often a sign that you screwed up a link (not so in smaller pedias). My advice: if you see a red link, double and triple check for an article on the topic using search. This may lead to the creation of a redirect. If you don't find it, go ahead and leave the red link as long as it satisfies Only make links that are relevant to the context. Deco 08:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some well-targeted redlinks are good for the encyclopedia. Spam-like lists of redlinks to trivial topics that will never develop into acceptable articles are bad.  When in doubt, I prefer the conservative approach - leave your list on your userpage until you're ready to actually write the article.  I think the existing paragraph does a good job of guiding new users through the thinking about what is and is not generally considered to be appropriate.  Rossami (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Deco&mdash;whichever way this goes, the revert-warring on this page is not productive; I agree the current wording is not optimal, and open to misinterpretation, but a compromise version of this could work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is no consensus on it, so it should not be included with the rest of the page which is agreed on. ··gracefool |☺ 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A point of procedure - we are discussing a long-established clause which has had wide acceptance in the past. It has been part of this page since the second edit.  (Personally, I thought the bullet was stronger with the Heinlein example but that's a minor point.)  In such a long-standing case, it is not the responsibility of the defenders of the status quo to show that consensus still exists.  Rather, it is incumbent on those attempting to change the page to show that consensus has changed.  Rossami (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rossami; a red link or two is not going to bring the world to an end, but a metric ton of them generally is a leading indicator of a poorly structured article. Nandesuka 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose a rephrasing of the paragraph on red links.

Like the guideline says, if a term is relevant to the article context, it should be defined as a link. In my opinion, that guideline should be followed regardless of whether the link becomes red or not, or we'll be generating a lot of extra work of retroactively linking necessary terms. I also believe that correctly placed red links encourages people to expand and improve Wikipedia, which to me is more important than the negative impact they have on the reading experience, which can be solved later (a future feature of Wikipedia could be a user setting that converts all red links into ordinary text, for example).

I agree, however, that extra care should be taken when you notice that one of your links becomes red, and that you perform additional checks - there might be a reason why the term has no article, or the article might go under a different name. This is what I'd like the paragraph on red links to explain.

Wintran 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree about the importance of the reading experience. But reasonable people can disagree.  I'd ask you to reconsider your thought about "a future feature of Wikipedia [that would] convert all redlinks into ordinary text".  Such a setting would defeat the statement immediately before it that redlinks encourage people to expand Wikipedia.  If we ever allow redlinks to not show, it will be far more difficult for people to find and expand the desired article.  I do not see us ever enabling such a function.  Rossami (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the future feature, my thought was that it would be a user preference that each registered user can change on their own. Per default it would display red links as it does today. This option would allow people who find red links distracting, or who only use Wikipedia for reading, to hide them when they're logged in. I haven't really thought about this feature in detail but I don't think such optional individual preferences would cause any harm, as long as the default value remains the same.
 * Btw, I just noticed that there already exists a similar preference under the Misc tab called Format broken links, that allows you to display red links like this: red link? instead of red link. I can't say I'm certain that my feature is needed now that I found that.
 * I still wish to see the red links paragraph rephrased to encourage people to create correct links even if they become red (just be more careful and recheck that they are correct). Otherwise, like I said, I'm afraid it'll generate too much extra work and slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Wintran 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still wish to see the red links paragraph rephrased to encourage people to create correct links even if they become red (just be more careful and recheck that they are correct). Otherwise, like I said, I'm afraid it'll generate too much extra work and slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Wintran 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still wish to see the red links paragraph rephrased to encourage people to create correct links even if they become red (just be more careful and recheck that they are correct). Otherwise, like I said, I'm afraid it'll generate too much extra work and slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Wintran 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, red links shouldn't be part of this guideline, per the first reason given by Tempshill above. It has nothing to do with the scope of this guideline (the relation between "links" and "context"). Whether, after putting a link, it colours "red" or "blue" has nothing to do with context. --Francis Schonken 22:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief addendum to this section. I do think there is a pretty strong consensus that red links to topics that clearly deserve articles are desirable, but that massive numbers of links or those to topics unlikely to ever have articles are not bery helpful. I do also agree that this isn't really a context issue, and that this rule might be better incorporated into Manual of Style (links), which at the moment is completely missing a discussion of red links. - SimonP 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's get this out of this article - I doubt even the supporters of this clause would be upset to see it move from one guideline page to another. Also see my brief discussion above of "in a Wikipedia of this size..." Deco 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for not reading through all of the opinions, but let me just tell you mine: I am generally pro-redlink, as long as they aren't to overdone in an article (a few redlinks are okay, they are rather positive, as Tempshill states in his point #2). I want to add, however, that in lists, for example lists of languages or language families or presidents of certain states, redlinks should be kept a) to remind the reader that there is some work that could be done and b) to become blue in future, when someone creates that article, who does not know of the redlink in the original list. — N-true 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I created my first article from a redlink, which was Round Maple, so i think they encorage new contrabuters.Homan&#39;s Copse (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks useful?
The recent edits to this guidance by SimonP are a result of a disagreement he had with me, where I citied WP:CONTEXT as a reason to remove redlinks from multiple articles on 5/31. We had a discussion about this on my talk page, but now that his changes here to this article have been reverted, I'm wondering how valid his points are. While I know that this is not the way it is currently stated in the guidance, is the following considered a valid and supportable point of view here at Wikipedia?
 * What should not be linked - Redlinks (links that go nowhere), unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.

Thanks, -- Argon233   T   C  @   ∉   20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There are many legitimate and immediately relevant topics that don't have articles. One that often comes up for me is well-known researchers in a narrow field. It's far better to leave in a link that encourages useful expansion than to delete them unilaterally. There was some discussion about redlinks farther up the page that shows a clear lack of consensus. Deco 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think the quoted section is very supportable. It is not, however, an absolute rule.  That's why the line says "usually better" and why it clearly says at the top of the page that this guideline is in dynamic tension with the Build the web guideline.  Some redlinks are good for the project.  Carefully targetted redlinks on specialized topics can be a way to entice the specialists to fill in a blank space in our coverage.  On the other hand, lots of redlinks that have little chance of being filled in anytime soon are a distraction to our readers.  They can actually get in the way of understanding and usability.  Striking the right balance requires editorial judgment and discretion.  Cooperative editing and consensus-seeking will generally lead us to the right balance.  Rossami (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. Deco 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I think all relevant links should be created and encouraged, regardless of if they become red or not. If a reader finds them disturbing this could be solved with a simple user preference, as opposed to retroactively having to add links that were previously red once they're turned into real links, which means a lot of extra work. Red links also inspires expansion of Wikipedia. See my comments at Red links above for more. Wintran 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, under the current mediawiki software, it can not be solved through our existing user preferences. You can either turn them all on or all off.  And I don't foresee us ever putting such a user preference in place because if we did, it would defeat your stated purpose.  Readers who can't see the red link can't be inspired by them to expand Wikipedia. No one is arguing against the addition of "relevant links".  The challenge is how to define "relevant" in the context of the particular article.  Rossami (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If registered users are disturbed by the visuals of red links, they can switch link format to questionmarks instead of whole red words (found at My preferences/Misc), but I agree that a feature to completely hide them might be bad. Wintran 13:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True, and I agree that extra care should be taken to ensure that links that become red really are relevant, such a checking that other articles don't already cover the subject. The reason I don't like the quote in Argon233's message is because I find it misleading - If the red link really is relevant, and don't overlap with an existing article, it shouldn't matter whether the current user is planning to start the article or if someone else eventuelly starts it a few years later, the link should be created in either case.
 * Redlinks are a signal that articles need to be created, especially when you come across a redlink to a TV show, movie, or book (as examples I most frequently encounter). If the redlink is to something so obscure that it's doubtful an article will be created ... well to be honest that's a POV judgement call and deleting the redlink, to be honest, would violate WP:NPOV. I think redlinks are fine, so long as articles don't become overlinked, for which there is already another rule in place. 23skidoo 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you, except that that's a misapplication of NPOV. It's possible to use links in a POV way - for example, refusing to link articles that contradict your viewpoint - but edits that aim to remove information that isn't notable in the opinion of that editor are not POV edits, no more than removing a diatribe on George Bush's cat from George Bush is. Deco 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

warning not to arbitrarily remove red links
I think it would be useful to have somewhere in the lead, bold text that states do not arbitrarily remove red links just because the article doesn't exist. The reason being that several times I've run across editors just removing clearly important red links. In the most recent case, I pointed the editor toward this page, but then he cited part 2 of "dealing with existing red links" which says to remove broken links. Apparently, "broken" link can be easily confused with "red" link. --C S (Talk) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. It should also be indicated clearly in this article that just because a red link exists it doesn't always mean the subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I've seen this excuse used by some "redlink removers" and I even saw someone today using the "if kept, remove redlinks" argument in an AFD discussion. The "broken link" line should be changed to indicate that this could also mean someone mispelled the Wikilink. Is there a particular reason why this isn't an official policy or guideline page? 23skidoo 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about adding or changing the lead to include something like "Removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their importance or relevance."The rest of the page could use some reworking, as people apparently find it confusing, but cleaning up the lead is a good start.--C S (Talk) 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also be good to make a brief mention that some WikiProjects, such as mathematics, extensively use red links. For example, Mathbot keeps track of Most_wanted_redlinks in mathematics articles, in addition to other lists of red links. --C S (Talk) 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created a nutshell tag stating: "Create red links to needed, unwritten topics. Removal of red links for nonexistent topics should not be done without careful consideration of their importance or relevance." I believe this is a good "in a nutshell" of the current content, which should be useful. Additionally, what is the status of this page anyway? The history is rather confusing. Is it a guideline? --C S (Talk) 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of deleted article links
Let's say an article goes up on AfD, gets mixed support, but ultimately is chosen to be deleted. Does this mean that all references to this page should be changed from links to regular text? This is assuming, of course, that the referral pages are not high-profile pages, and they each already have multiple other red links. What is everyone's opinion on this?

And a second question: does your opinion on this change if consensus makes clear during AfD discussion that the page should be resubmitted for review after a better case for inclusion can be made? I'm asking these questions because I want to get a feel for people's opinions over here. Obviously, some sort of guideline on this very issue should be created, though it is so far unclear as to what that guideline should say. &mdash; Eric Herboso 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am quoting below a commemt made by User:Ceyockey on my talk page, in reference to a specific instance of the above.


 * The reason why I have removed wikilinks like this is to help to prevent a cycle of quick re-creation/deletion/re-creation of articles that have undergone an AFD action. I only mean this to be a speed bump and add the reference to the AFD action in a comment which is readily apparent when an editor goes to create a link.  Most editors when seeing a red-link and having some information will create a stub and won't know that the article has previously been deleted; this very often leads to frustration on the part of the editor.  If only they could see upfront that the article had been deleted and, more importantly, why it had been deleted, the new article creation could anticipate and avoid the previous characteristics that led to deletion ... or so one hopes.  It's a good faith attempt to reduce frustration on the parts of editor and administrator alike.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [Originally left at Eric Herboso's talk page.]


 * I feel that while it is desirable to have new editors know that such an article should not yet be made, it is nevertheless important to keep links up (unless it is a highly public place, like the front page). By keeping links available, you don't lose information later on, if the article is reinstated and stays in place.  Further, it becomes easy to show that an article is needed, and will be a good reason to bring up the case before AfD again.


 * Keep in mind that AfD's decision is based on many factors, but one important one is whether or not Wikipedia itself has many references to that topic. Referring links are a good source of which articles are highly needed.  Removing red links will completely remove this avenue of reinstatement as an article as a vehicle for change.  (A mixed metaphor, but only barely.)  I strongly suggest that an addition to Red link be made, stating that red links to AfD articles should be removed if AfD used speedy delete or consensus showed that the article will never be allowed in the encyclopedia.  For any other situation, red links should be left, or redirects should be made to the appropriate area.  In the absence of any further comment, I will make this change myself.  &mdash; Eric Herboso 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the relevant content that was discussed above on Red link. Not many participated in the discussion, but I went ahead with being bold and changed it to reflect the position I feel makes the most logical sense. The change was made here. For reference, the content is as follows:


 * 1) The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted).  In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.  If the article was deleted, there are many appropriate ways to deal with the resultant red links depending on what reason was given at Articles for deletion.
 * 2) If the article was speedily deleted, then the red links should be changed to ordinary text.
 * 3) If the article was deleted by near unanimous consensus for reasons of an unencyclopedic nature, then the red links may be changed to ordinary text.
 * 4) If the article was deleted due to lack of sources, non-notability, or any reason which may admit the article to be resubmitted at a later date, the red links should be left alone.

Please leave a comment if you disagree with this change. &mdash; Eric Herboso 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change. Articles deleted for non-notability are usually spam and vanity articles. Redlinks to non-notable topics should be removed from other articles as well. We don't need unimportant information spammed into other articles. --Dragonfiend 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what if we specify degrees of non-notability? If it is clearly spam or vanity articles, then of course there is no reason to leave red links.  I am only advocating leaving red links in cases where the non-notability charge may not apply in the future.  After all, it is notoriously difficult to replace lost links once they are gone.  And what harm is there in having red links to articles that are legitimately linked to?  Of course, if it is just link spam, then they of course should be deleted.  But many articles removed by AfD are not just spam or vanity, but are legitimate topics that just don't quite meet the criteria needed for their own encyclopedia page yet.


 * What if we change the text to read: "If the article was deleted due to lack of sources, non-notability, or any reason which may admit the article to be resubmitted at a later date, and if the article was not created as spam or vanity, then the red links should be left alone."? Would this change adequately fix what your objection was against?  &mdash; Eric Herboso 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, whether as entire articles, or as information in other articles, whether accompanied by red links or not. --Dragonfiend 06:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If all articles that are deleted for non-notability were permenantly deleted, then I might agree with you. But many articles have been deleted on that basis only to be readmitted later on.  Consider schools, for example.  Of course, the vast majority of non-notable deleted articles are vanity or spam articles.  But not all of them are.  Some are genuine articles that just don't quite pass the notability guidelines.  In these articles, it is useful to retain the redlinks, so that you can use the What links here function to gauge how much demand there is for the article over time.  Surely you must admit that there is a category of articles that, while non-notable for inclusion as an article, are nonetheless notable enough to mention many times over in the wikipedia -- shouldn't these deserve redlinkage?  &mdash; Eric Herboso 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here for Eric's addition. One puzzling thing is that the various criteria appear to contradict each other. An article could be speedy-deleted due to no assertion of notability, but criterion 1 appears to say remove the red link while criterion 3 says keep it. Also, one thing that makes me a bit leery myself is that I see articles speedy-deleted all the time for inane reasons. I can see someone going to undo the red links only to run into resistance by people who know the red links are to a notable topic. Such a person would argue, well this page on red links says I should remove the links, whereas everyone else would argue this topic is important, it's not our problem that some admin deleted a badly written article or whatever on the topic. In other words, I think being overly-prescriptive is bad. We certainly don't want people going around removing red links against the consensus of people who are doing a good job of maintaining articles (including whatever red links they include). Since I don't see anybody besides Eric supporting this addition, I am going to remove it for now until there is a clear consensus for it. --C S (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with Ceyockey, and some of the other views expressed here. Ceyockey explains that he or she removes links to articles that failed afd to discourage people from recreating them.  I've had articles I started get a speedy deletion notice, because an article with that title had recently been deleted, only to have the closing admin recognize that the article I drafted from scratch was a perfectly valid article, that didn't share any of the weaknesses that got the original article deleted.  IIRC I wasn't aware that articles with those names had been deleted.  IIRC I had merely come across a gap in the wikipedia's coverage, and filled it.


 * User:C S notes that they have seen valid articles speedy deleted for inane reasons. I would say that this problem is not confined to speedy deletion.  The criteria for deletion in WP:DEL are routinely ignored in the deletion fora.  Just last week I participated in an afd on an article whose current content was almost certainly vanity, or a hoax, and which was entirely unreferenced -- but when my google search showed that a perfectly valid article could be written on that topic, and I rewrote it, with references, so it covered non-vanity, non-hoax material, several wikipedians who had originally spoken for deletion criticized me for fixing the article.  They claimed that by fixing it I was "encouraging vandalism".  Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think topic and article name is the same. In the case you describe, Red Mercury (Movie) was created about a hoax or non-notable 2008 movie. You changed it to be about a notable 2005 movie during the AfD. That's another topic, even if the movie has the same name and could be in an article of the same name. If the non-notable 2008 movie had been deleted (without turning it into the notable movie) then redlinks referring to the 2008 movie (determined from context of the redlink) could be deleted while redlinks with the same name but referring to the 2005 movie could be kept. The situation is probably more common with bios. By the way, I had not seen the movie article and AfD before now but here are some thoughts: I think it was a good initiative to make an article about the 2005 movie, but I think you confused the AfD by turning the debated movie article into another movie. You could have created the 2005 movie as "Red Mercury (2005 film)]], and possibly moved it later if the 2008 film was deleted. Or you could have said something like "delete, with no prejudice against later creating an article about the 2005 movie, and keep redlinks referring to the 2005 movie". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewording of "When to create red links"
I was hoping to reword the paragraph on "When to create red links".

I think the text can be easily mis-interpreted and from reading the discussion above it seems like more people are of the opinion it is okay to err in favor of create red links.

Especially the wording here: "Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the titles of book chapters. Do create red links to articles you intend to create or technical terms that need to be explained."

I was involved in a discussion recently where I felt that it left a lot of room for debate based on whether the page would be created, and by who. Also I could see how someone might read it simply as "Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links." Also it seems to indicate that one should only create a red link, if they intend to create that article themselves.

Perhaps wording the paragraph in a positive tone would be more straight forward.


 * I agree the your new wording is better. --C S (Talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Red links in For templates
Is it ok to create a for template directing to a page with a red link? I don't believe so, but a fellow Wikipedian seems to disagree. He claims that there will be an article there, but the red link has been present for over two months now, and reverts the page when I remove it. –Crashintome4196 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically to which article are you referring? I'm generally in favor of keeping red links that at least point to something significant, whether or not the article exists yet.  But I'd still like to see the case in point. Ar-wiki 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a legitimate article, can't you just create a stub? &mdash; Eric Herboso 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New "red" links
I just noticed that something changed in the software so that red links have now become black with a little red question mark after. Could someone point me to the discussion regarding this? I find it a most annoying change. Rook wood Dept. of Mysteries 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See also links
Some editors place redlinks in a "See also" section at the end. I don't think it makes sense to ask readers to also see something that does not exist. I have deleted several such links, for example today here. I have not found mention of this practice. I suggest saying that redlinks should not be used as "See also" links. PrimeHunter 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reluctantly agree that red links in see also sections are not appropriate. But I think just removing them is not very good.  I've myself done this because I was too busy to write a short sentence including a red link.  Particularly for less mainstream topics, removing an important red link, I feel, can be very disastrous, outweighing any benefit in making the page look nicer.  Of course, we don't want the see also section cluttered up with nonexistent articles either.  So here is my proposal: rather than just deleting red links from "see also", move them to the talk page, especially if they seem important and relevant.  For clearly frivolous links, this would not be necessary.  But I suggest just applying the same usual criteria for removing a red link that is in the text to deciding whether a red "see also" link should be moved to the talk page or simply deleted.  --C S (Talk) 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I routinely remove red links from "see also" listings, as they are very misleading. "See also" is clearly an invitation to see another article for further information, but the reader just ends up being informed that no such article exists. I cannot see any logical reason for red links in "see also" listings. There must be a better way of highlighting the fact that an article is needed, for example by stating somewhere in the article something like: "Conventional ship and boat rudders include the fully balanced rudder, semi-balanced rudder, and spade rudder".--Shantavira|feed me 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But you didn't do that. You just routinely removed redlinks  in Rudder because you have determined that they are misleading.  In fact they mislead no-one.  they are red links because the page is absent.  A redlink creates an entry in Wanted Pages.  They are informative by being red.


 * You could also have migrated them to the talk page, which would have been helpful. Just tidying up the chairs does not make the room look better.  Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Very disastrous"? Please, enough with the hyperbole. I agree with talk-paging as a valid strategy, but it is just as practical and less talk-page-disruptive (and I mean that in the vernacular sense, not the WP:DE sense) to simply.

Business people
Is there a policy on business people? What I mean is, major office holders in a moderate sized company, who are unlikely to be notable otherwise. I believe the correct policy should be to name them (because their names are relevant) but not redlink them, because the chances of accidentally linking to the wrong person (i.e. someone notable with the same name) are greater than the chances of them becoming notable. And if they do become notable then it is a simple matter to go back and fix the links.

For instance People Telecom: four officers are named and linked. Three are redlinks, while the fourth links to a different John Stanton, giving an inappropriate link. (They may be the same person, but I think it is extremely unlikely). Of course I could go and create a link to John Stanton (Australian businessman), but I don't see the point. I then followed a few of the links at other Category:Internet service providers of Australia, and found that quite a few others (such as Bigpond, Connect.com.au, DART Internet) had a similar problem (redlinks to officers without pages, or blue links to someone else with the same name).

So I'd like to suggest that business people be explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. The guidelines already suggests to not redlink "a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right)", but I think a business person is a much better example (they are far less likely to become notable than a celebrity's romantic interest). Peter Ballard 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's a notability guideline on business people, which is what you seem to be asking for. I think rather than be too specific in this page, it's best to just say, look there are various notability guidelines for different topics (like WP:BAND), and if you're going to create lots of red lnks to that type of thing, please do it in accordance to said notability guideline.  My reasoning is that this page itself should not be setting out notability guidelines.  I suspect, very much, that your opinion business people (while perfectly agreeable and reasonable) may differ from some non-minor number of persons.  Thus it's best to just redirect people to places where these things are discussed fully and hammered out.  The love interest that is not a celebrity, is, at this point, pretty established, which makes it a "safe" example.  --C S (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. In that case, I'd like the page to point more explicitly to the Notability guidelines, say something like, "In all cases, only redlink people who you think will satisfy WP:Notability guidelines". I'd then like to add the point I made, something like: "In the case of non-notable people, a redlink can more harm than good, because there is a good chance it may end up pointing to a different person of the same name". Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, thanks for your response. By the way, I don't think it's too difficult to start a notability guideline proposal on business people (if one really doesn't exist); of course, it could take a while to get fleshed out and accepted.  Yes, that note on the notability guidelines would be a good idea!  People spend a lot of time on those and probably the only reason this page doesn't mention them is that it was written before these notability issues became such a hotly debated issue.  The other point you make sounds good too.  Why not go ahead and add them?  We can work out how to reword the points and clean up this page too.  This page could use some substantial cleanup; it's getting a little less cohesive as points are repeated in various spots.  While people seem to agree on the major points, the typical contribution (and I'm guilty of this too) seems to be to drop in and add or change a part of it without regard for the whole content.  --C S (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm leaving town shortly for a distant land (business rather than pleasure). I'll be gone for more than a week.  --C S 13:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One bit, can you please discuss and make a allowance for needed redlinks, even if you don,t want them. Can I recommend you use the start point of this for discussion. If you think you can alter major edits or minor ones, think again please do so only in the sandbox for practice and first use only not second use. No first use of advert is allowed anyway. What are blue links and can you please explain the use and the meaning of blue and red links. I need you to raise awareness of the major changes to this page please do so now. Don,t try to do or make any edits in the sandbox or if you are going to use this page for editing the first time or the so called preview either. Follow all the rules and explain to me about the use of original research and why and also about the links. Bye bye from for now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairycart (talk • contribs).

Names
What is the policy towards red-linking names? Is there a different rule for linking people than for linking other stuff? I'm specifically interested in what to do with cast & crew lists on film articles, personnel lists on albums etc. These are people who are potentially famous / notable but for whom no article currently exists.

I noticed, for example, that many East Asian film articles contain a cast list where every actor is linked, but only some of those actors have articles. Some of these red-linked people may be very famous in their native country, and becoming more well known in the west, and as such could well eventually get their own articles.

Should the reds be unlinked for the sake of tidyness, or should they be linked to encourage people to write articles on them? Gram123 09:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You should red link the names for which you want people to write articles. You should not be too liberal in doing this.  In other words, don't speculate on whether they could become famous.  One helpful tool is using "what links here" after say, clicking on a red link in a preview, to see if other articles mention that person.  Personally, I find a list of red links as you describe pretty useless, as I know not all of those people could be famous.  On the other hand,  if I see a cast list, with only a few red links, I pay more attention, as that indicates to me that someone has carefully thought out who should have articles.


 * As for redlinking people versus other topics, I think there is really only one difference: WP:BLP. If a person is marginally notable, you ought to be careful in encouraging people to create an article on him/her, especially if the claim to notability is based somewhat on something potentially libelous.  The official policy seems to be that if a marginally notable person requests his/her bio removed, Wikipedia will honor that request.  So keep that in mind.  --C S 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion (and possibly I am advocating a change of policy here) is that you should only redlink a person if you know the person is notable and deserves an article. When you redlink every person involved in a given movie, company or other project, my observation is that a fair percentage end up linking to a different person of the same name (see my comments in the section above, ). In other words, indiscriminate redlinking of people does more harm than good - the chance of a misleading link (to a different person of the same name) is greater than the chance of the "right" article eventually being created. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

MoS designation
Since when was this designated part of the Manual of Style? In one skimming of it, I've found more than a dozen things to fix, just from a grammar, spelling, English language parseability and basic logic standpoint, much less delving deeper into whether it actually meshes well with extant, well-developed guidelines, and has consensus buy-in. I challenge this page's designation as a guideline at all, much less part of the MoS (but not so much as to slap a Disputedtag tag on it yet; the deficiencies can probably be rectified rather quickly if someone who cares about this page will bother). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * UnitedStatesian added guideline and quickly changed it to style-guide 30 April 2007. I haven't seen a proposal or discussion about it. PrimeHunter 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked the same thing, more or less above. Anyway, from experience, I don't think the intent of this page (especially the nutshell) is contrary to the overall consensus on Wikipedia.  I would urge that people work on improving this page and give it some kind of semi-official status as it is very useful to point people toward.  Perhaps the folks that worked on the original guideline(s) and split off this page could be bugged to come take a look.  --C S 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I note no policy on red links and disambiguation messages at the top of pages. Take Cladistics. Should there be a link to the journal article? Do we have an established consensus on this matter? If so it should be added to appropriate guideline pages. If not, I would be in favour of not having such links, and I imagine others would agree. Richard001 10:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there should ever be redlinks in a Hatnote like the one added to cladistics in . PrimeHunter 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are cases where redlinks in hatnotes are very much necessary. For example, the scientifically exact dab for any taxon is " ". Sometimes, one finds e.g. " (genus)"; this was used initially but in many cases is ambiguous itself (Hovever, there is at least one case where it is indeed correct, involving homonymy of two different Linnean ranks in the same order). If you care to know why this is so, see Homonym (biology) and browse the Nomenclator Zoologicus.
 * To cut a long story short, having the redlink around will prevent use of the deprecated dab format. This holds true for any case of improper or outdated dabs.
 * The cladistics example - it is merely useful because the occasional mis-link to the article (instead of the journal) occurs, and having the dab will help sort that out. Remove it if you really can't live with it. Dysmorodrepanis 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You make a good case, but are you extending this to all red links that could possibly have an article? I'd rather see an article created than removal of hatnotes, but it's rather annoying for the reader to be offered a link to an article that doesn't exist (it's kind of like saying "Would you like to come through this door instead?", and holding open a door blocked by a brick wall). Then again, it could serve as a motivation for the annoyed to create such articles (as I have done in this case). Richard001 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out! I feel that there should be red links.  It is frustrating to not be able to find what you want, especially for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia.  So going to an article that you think is right, and finding a line at the top that points you to what you actually want is great, even if the link says that an article has not yet been written on that subject.  — Reinyday, 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinyday (talk • contribs)

red links only for article YOU intend to create?
An anon made some substantial changes whose net effect was to claim that red links should only be made if you intend to immediately create those articles. Since that pretty much goes against what I would think is the philosophy of the page and all the discussion I've seen on this matter, I've reverted it. --C S 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your revert, C S. &mdash; Eric Herboso 05:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

geopolitical red links
I just noticed when I added a statement about "what links here" in relation to red links, that a similar statement in the context of geopolitical links was inserted above. This seems out of place. I agree with what it says, but perhaps a short list of essential red link topics (such as geographical, etc.) would be better. --C S (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition by Phil Sandifer
I'm a little disturbed the recent edit by Phil : "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article. Although large masses of red links can be aesthetically unsatisfying, it is better for them to become blue links than for them to disappear entirely."

It seems to suggest one should never delete red links. I know that's not what he means, but it gives that impression, IMHO. The first sentence is fine, but the second is too strong, I think. There is already plenty written on when it's good to remove or keep a red link. There's no need to write something that suggests that it's better to turn a red link blue on a topic that shouldn't have an article than remove it. --C S (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

status of this guideline?
This seems like a reasonable guideline, and it self-describes as a "style guideline", but it's not linked from the MOS -- is it not part of the MOS? why not? --Lquilter (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is part of the MOS, but is a SubArticle several levels down:
 * MOS ==> MOS (Links) ==> Red link

UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(not yet written)
Was there some option that I may have changed inadvertently in my preferences or something that makes it say "(not yet written)" whenever I hover my mouse pointer over a red link? I just started noticing it recently and didn't know if it shows up for everyone else too. Seems kinda redundant to me. For An Angel (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also saw it. First it was on redlinked articles but not userpages. Later userpages also had the text. And now it has disappeared on both. I don't know where it's controlled. The Spanish Wikipedia still has it (with the English text). The Italian Wikipedia had it earlier (with an Italian text) but now it's gone there. I don't edit or have accounts at those Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the Spanish Wikipedia again and it had disappeared. Things change quickly. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh... that's weird! At least I know now that it wasn't something I did! For An Angel (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * During the last few minutes I have seen it be there, go away and come back on this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * says it's a new feature and the text comes from MediaWiki:Red-link-title. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New addition
Following comments I made above at, which got one positive comment (and no negative ones), I've added the following paragraph:

"There is another reason not to create a red link to a non-notable person: it can end up being a link to a different person of the same name."

Peter Ballard (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has decided to remove all red links
I was really surprised when user:Beeblbrox said he wanted to remove all red links from Wikipedia. Please help him or her: user talk:Beeblbrox. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Searching red links?
Is it possible to search all red links containing a certain word? Say there were a red link called sunflower seeds in popular culture, would it be possible to search for this link using the keyword seeds?

In my particular case, I wanted to search for all red links containing the word Switzerland. Requests can be made manually at Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes, but I would also be interested in a dynamic list. Thanks for any feedback on this. --Kaorip1 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete this page??
lolz, if we liek, deleted tihs page, then liek, all the redlink links would be red too lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.74.105 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This guideline has appeared on the Signpost
Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans. Includes a comment about the new trend of editors who remove red links for aesthetic reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Red links
It would help a lot if people would LEAVE RED LINKS if they have a good potential for becoming an article, or even if they don't. I used the search feature on many of the titles of my articles and nearly or more than doubled the links to some of my pages.

A lot of people want their articles to be so aesthetically perfect and they delete all dead links. There would be much more integrity if people were not so neurotic about red links. Red links created by the deletion of a page ESPECIALLY should not be removed, for it is obvious that it is a potential article, if it was one already. I've added redlinks to articles before I have created an article and have seen them get removed; people don't like the way red links look, which is understandable, but this is an encyclopedia not an aesthetics convention. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Things like nationally known companies should always be made links, regardless of whether or not the article exists. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my view on red links.

Main Namespace "redlink" redirect?
I figure that Redlink and Red link should redirect to Red link. Is it legit to have a Main Namespace article redirect to Wikipedia Namespace? -M.Nelson (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the history of Red link, it appears that cross-namespace redirects are NOT legit. Too bad. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Areas For Reform: Redlinking Wikipedians
We urgently need to encourage more new editors to contribute, as we don't have enough active established editors to properly maintain the Wikipedia content.

At Wikipedia: Areas for Reform, Dave souza suggested that the addition or retention of useful red links in articles would help to encourage the generation of content, which is especially needed for new editors as the Wikipedia community content matures and such opportunities diminish.

To assist a little in this endeavour, I've created a Wikipedia category Redlinking Wikipedians‎ (as a sub-cat of Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy) and an associated user box.  Esowteric + Talk  16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another pointless redlink removal practice: creation of the noncontributive stub
I am seeking consensus to strengthen this policy, inasmuch as our present statement that "redlinks help Wikipedia grow" does not seem to be clear enough for some of our editors. Yes, it keeps them from simply removing the brakets (sometimes). But what it doesn't NOT do is to keep them from turning the redlink blue by creating a useless stub with no more information than was obvious from the article that contained the redlink to begin with! Redlinks may help Wikipedia grow, but they don't help it grow that way, because no information is being added. An uniformative stub does not add any information to Wikipedia, and in fact reprensents a net LOSS of information, because now a redlink that previously signalled a need for a more informative article on the subject, is not red anymore, so now it looks fine (even though WP is no more informative than before).

I'd like to go and specifically state in a NUTSHELL that stubs must not be created for the purpose of killing redlinks, unless they contain significant additional information. If we wanted to stub all appropriate redlinks and get rid of them that way, then this article should SAY that. Obviously (at least to me) we don't. S  B Harris 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks used with
Is there any policy or discussion dealing with the use of red links placed in 'related article' headers such as or ? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving redlinks red for long periods of time
The guideline now says "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." Emphasis added.

Unless there is a consensus against this change in the next week, I would suggest that we also add the word "soon" after "should be created". The policy behind such a change would be the same as that leading to the first use of the word "soon".

I raise this because another editor has suggested that he can redlink phrases without any sense of need to create an article (subject to notability verification), because the word "soon" only appears once in the sentence. This leads to unsightly redlinks to articles that might or might not survive a notablity review appearing ad infitum.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Presumably the reason for the word soon in the sentence is so that we do not have articles replete with red links, without anyone trying to creat an article (often, the reason a red link will lie stagnant for over a year is that it is not of great enough interest to anyone to warrant them spending the time to write the article, or else it is not notable enought to survive the notability scrutiny that would result from an article being written -- but which does not attend a red link). I support the present use of the word soon -- it suggests that red links should not be left for long periods of time.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest going the other way and removing the first part of the sentence altogether. Simply leaving "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable" is far better IMO. At present it suggests that you can leave a redlink to something nn and then write an article on the nn subject. Certainly I would not be in favour of adding a second "soon" - a future article doesn't become less worthy of a redlink by virtue of the length of time it takes to start an article on it. Grutness...wha?  22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are not inherently bad, and in fact they can be useful. For example The Bowery Presents is currently a redlink, but if you look at "What links here" for that page you will see the articles that mention the group.  Now, I'm not about to create the page about The Bowery Presents and I certainly don't expect anyone else to create the article on it anytime soon, but from what you are saying since the article won't be created soon you think the links from those three articles should be removed.  I do not see how the redlinks to The Bowery Ballroom negatively impact the articles and in fact I would argue that by the "what links here" page I linked to earlier the redlinks can in some ways enhance navigation.  That is my take on the situation anyway. ~ Paul T +/C 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see the wisdom in looking at the number of "what links here" references as part of the test, making it two parts. I believe that the reasonable thought behind the inclusion of the word soon in the current guidance is the thought that -- all things being equal -- having articles replete with redlinks forever would be less attractive (certainly much busier -- needlessly) than if after some period of time the link were removed if no article were created. Your suggestion that the # of links to the article might be indicia of notability is reasonable, as an alternative. But if there aren't other articles linking to it (or a certain number -- you might suggest what you think would be reasonable), and it sits for a longer period of time than "soon" (whatever that is), I think it is reasonable for an editor to un-redlink it. BTW, what I see often is people redlinking the names of people on "notable residents" and other residents lists. And if one googles the name, one can't find indicia of notability. I think those should also be deleted from the notability list, let alone un-redlinked

BTW-- you may find this interesting ... a list that is 2 years old of the articles with the most red links referring to them. What I find especially curious is that the vast majority remain red links, without anyone having had interest in creating the articles. See --VMAsNYC (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC about red links in featured lists
Comments are appreciated at this RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Modest Proposal: Change "redlink" default color to GREEN
I have posted this elsewhere, but it deserves to be put as a proposal here, also.

Redlinks are not inherrently bad, even if they last a long time. The real problem they create is that people hate to look at them, and are intolerant of them. Most people do not know about the way to change default redlink default disply to a "?" and some would find the flashing ? just as distracting.

In all practicality, seeing how many people are out there with shorter horizons of attention, and who think every redlink needs stomping out for aesthetic reasons, I think the redlink problem could most usefully and quickly be solved by changing the default color they are presented as, to green. Green is the color of new growth, and "greenlinks" can easily be the buds from which Wikipedia grows, instead of the cuts from which it looks like it bleeds.

Red has long signalled blood and anger and (thus) emergency and STOP NOW, and you can't just waive those associations away by telling people they don't mean this on WP. Yes, I know each reader can change to "?" and you could even make that default, because most will NOT. They'll continue to look at red and be bothered by it. This is a combination software AND policy problem. It would have to be changed by concensus, followed by a formal request to WMF to have MediaWiki set to some other unlinked color. S B Harris 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to this, for both the psychological reasons you mention, and also for very practical ones. In terms of the psychological reasons, if people are more intolerant of red for links, that surely will mean they're more likely to want to change them to blue ones, not less likely. Changing the links to green, if your reasoning is to be believed, will only result in those dead links hanging around for longer. Red may be associated with blood and anger and green with new growth, but these are only some of the associations these colours have. Green is also associated with illness and decay, for instance, and red with vivacity and power. I seriously doubt that anyone is put off clicking on a redlink simply because it is red - more likely they'll try to find some explanation for why it is red. If anything, the red signals an alert message that indicates that something can be done here by the casual editor.


 * There is, however, a more important practical reason why I'd be opposed to this suggestion. Red and blue are clearly different and the links can be seen to be clearly different in most sets of circumstances. A green link will, however, look a lot more like a blue link. As an editor who uses a laptop screen in sunny weather (and I severely doubt I'm the only editor who does that), any reduction in the visible difference between the two types of links is something I would strongly object to. Grutness...wha?  01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that all eperience (including the great link-->stub change debacle debate above) shows that when people are bothed by the color of redlinks they don't get rid of them in useful ways (ways that help the encyclopedia). Most often they simply quickly delink them or stub them so as not to HAVE to look at them, and both of these totally defeats the purpose. S  B Harris 01:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that changing the colour will change that - people will still be lazy and simply delink potential article titles, whatever colour the dead link is. Grutness...wha?  22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the blue-purple-red scheme is a default dating back to the pre-Wikipedia age, so red links—the only one I would consider "broken"—are ripe for reform. The study mentioned on this page says that it is the entering of the reference into the system that encourages growth, not the colour. If people do create new articles because they hate the colour red, I would say that the colour is working too well. People are most definitely delinking and depreciating red links, which then counters that growth, even in WP:FACs, as recently as two years ago, and in WP:FLCs to this day. Further, as raised in the other RfC mentioned above, I agree that bright red is more distracting than bright blue—not enough to bother me but I can see how that might bother some. Green works for me and I'd like to see this implemented on a project wide trial basis, at the very least, to give us some real observations to work with and I imagine it will draw some attention to the problem. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a pre-Wikipedia standard -which is why a blue-purple-red pattern is so common on the web. i think that changing the red to green will confuse anyone used to the scheme (which is most web users). Chandrasegarampillai (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) I was about to make a similar comment Grutness...wha?  05:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's how I've got my browser and skins configured (I forget), but external links appear green on my screen.   Will Beback    talk    06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well quick, change it back. Grutness thinks it will do exactly the opposite of what we want. And will make no difference. And will cause great confusion, due to other web standards (WP/MediaWiki's use of non-HTML tags, one presumes, are just something you have to get USED TO). Reconcile those. But be quick, before you're perverted! You may already have done yourself lasting damage. S  B Harris 07:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Changing the colour will likely reduce the number of people investigating the links in order to expand them; 2) changing the colour will not stop people simply removing the link; 3) changing the colour will confuse people who are used to red meaning a link to a non-existent page and blue meaning a link to an existing page -which is very common web-wide. I'll also add that if some users currentkly use green for external links, then having them suddenly find green is also used for links to non-existent articles will cause problems for them, too. All of these facts are consistent with each other. And as far as I am aware, readers of wikipedia are not likely to be confused by the use of non-HTML tags until they actually start to edit pages - and then can look up the help files. They're not faced with unexpected link types sim,ply on reading articles. The only thing which seems to be difficult to reconcile here is your flippancy and good wikiquette. Grutness...wha?  07:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're underestimating the hatred red links inspire, have you checked out the other RfC? I've been arguing in favour of red links for weeks now and there is no shortage of venom aimed at that colour. Anyway, there will always be an element opposed to change, even one as minor—albeit far reaching—as this. And most of these arguments are speculative, for example, I can't see anyone taking longer than a minute's time to comprehend the change, or most people even caring. Now would be a perfect time to give this a trial run with the beta testing. Anyone fundamentally opposed to any change won't have switched yet so we can get some hopefully objective feedback via the beta feedback system already in place. And people won't even have to find this conversation to voice their opinion. If people don't like it we can just say it was for Halloween and slink away without anybody losing face. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Wikipedia users will not edit, and that is how it should be. I think redlinks should be as invisible as possible to anyone who is not logged in. (Perhaps black - so all you see is the underline?) But to anyone logged in, they should stand out - and for us, I think red is good!--Noe (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike the proposed green, because it's wimpy intensity makes it harder to read. I have the same concerns about the illegibility and inaccessibility of light blue links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links are okay. I have no hatred for red links.  I've seen no evidence of anyone hating the color (except, apparently, SBHarris).  I have seen limited evidence that some people hate the idea of no-article-exists-here links, but these people would be just as unhappy with green or orange or purple links, because it would still signal the truth, which is that no article exists here.
 * In the other RFC, you didn't mention why you thought red links should be limited but presumably because it makes the list look unfinished. (Forgive me if I've presumed too much but others have made that argument.) Yet, the colour indicates nothing about the list, it indicates that other articles have not yet been created, that Wikipedia is unfinished. We want people to know that, they might be encouraged to join in. You can say people would feel the same way were it another colour but colours are scientifically proven to affect people. Stop signs are red for a reason, it draws people's eyes and alerts them to an immediate issue. Might you have followed the above logic all the way through if it were another colour? It's possible, isn't it? At the very least, green would draw a less visceral reaction than red. Evidence-wise, I'd encourage you to check out the red-specific arguments over there, my summary here doesn't do them justice. And if blue and green appear too light on your monitor you may want adjust your brightness setting—monitors generally come set to showroom levels, which is overkill for home use and causes them to burn out more quickly. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The other RFC" is specific to featured lists. Featured lists are supposed to represent our best work.  A long list of articles that do not exist (but should) is not IMO an example of Wikipedia's best work.
 * I find that light blue text on a white background is harder to read than a higher-contrast combination on any kind of monitor, which suggests that 'factory default' settings are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A month later. Yet one turns those red links black or blue and suddenly it is Wikipedia's best work? And that has nothing to do with the colour? I can't understand that at all. And it's unclear, did you try adjusting the brightness and contrast settings? Blue hyperlinks have been around for ages and this is the first time I've seen this complaint. If the settings don't help, you can change the colours with your monobook. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO blue hyperlinks are legible on a white background. light blue links are not so easily readable on a white background.  The inherent contrast between {light blue and white} is necessarily less than the contrast between {blue and white}.  That's what the "light" bit means in "light blue":  "light", as in "much closer in color to white than usual".  There is no possible monitor setting that will make "light blue" have as much contrast with white as "blue".
 * I really don't think that my support for the long-standing rule that a WP:Featured list should provide links to a reasonable proportion of extant articles (rather than to a long list of missing articles) has anything to do with the color that the links are. I would object to a "sea of green" or a "sea of orange" just as much as I object to a "sea of red" in that context:  IMO featured lists should not be comprised overwhelmingly of links to non-existent articles.  I realize that you're unhappy about having failed to eliminate this long-standing requirement from the featured list criteria, but its relationship to the default colors on readers' screens is IMO somewhere between tenuous and tendentious.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Light blue, trans wiki link light blue, I missed that. Well, I don't think that's comparable to regular green but I'd have no objection to a deeper forest green either. I'm not unhappy about anything. The point I was making is, whatever your opinion on the subject, there are others who have said red is distracting, unprofessional, unfinished and just plain bad. Incidentally, adherence to the Manual of Style is also a long standing requirement which says that red links are good and should not be ghettoized. They remain good even at, in, or as a sea. The suggested change should help get that point across. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with colors, but as I get older, my eyes find it more and more difficult to distinguish between "G" and "C". I think it would help us older users if capital C's at Wikipedia were instead written "チ". Do you think we could get チonsensus to agree? I know several much more radical re-workings of the English language which have had a great deal of success here... Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's another case of somebody killing redlinks just because they think they're "ugly." . Yet every time somebody proposes that they be changed to some other color, we get the backtalk that this kind of thing never happens, so no "fix" is necessary. Well, it happens! A fix would be useful. S B Harris 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I figured I would add my two cents worth. As a very new entrant to Wiki editing, maybe some will find my comments useful. To me, my intuition said that when I saw a red link, something was broken. When I discovered that red meant that it was a link to something that wasn't there, in my mind it confirmed what I thought and I started "fixing" them by removing brackets. I figured they were links to pages that used to exist and were deleted, leaving a dangling reference. Not once did I consider the thought that a red link was somehow an encouragement to write the article.

Imagine my surprise when I came upon this discussion and discovered that there were those that thought red links were a good thing!! So I add my vote for green. To me, red means bad. Donpayette (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to set my own configuration so red links show up green? Also, did I do this "help me" correctly? Donpayette (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You did the "help me" correctly. I do not support the change site wide, but if it works for you, that's fine, as long as you remember, and don't talk about a green linked article in conversations with others. I don't know how to make the change, but I am sure it can be done. If you pose your question at Village Pump Technical, there are editors there who know how to do it, and may not be monitoring help requests.


 * I'll leave this help request open, as there may be someone else along who knows how to do it. (Oh and if you do a search at the Village pump site, you are likely to find it.)-- SPhilbrick  T  15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can change your link color by going to your skin's CSS page (Special:MyPage/skin.css) and adding the lines:
 * This will turn all your redlinks green. You can change this to be any color - just replace the hexadecimal. (Examples at HTML color names if you need them.) Avic ennasis  @ 18:00, 7 Av 5771 / 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This will turn all your redlinks green. You can change this to be any color - just replace the hexadecimal. (Examples at HTML color names if you need them.) Avic ennasis  @ 18:00, 7 Av 5771 / 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I settled on this, which works great:




 * Thanks, all. Donpayette (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion
FYI (no discussion here please): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films is a discussion relevant to this guideline. Powers T 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And done. I've deleted the above too. I was originally thinking of writing something more relevant to red link discussion (though it didn't turn out that way and I clicked save anyway.), and in the past few days I was considering moving the post, but not sure where. Maybe a bot discussion page? Nope, the project films discussion page is a good place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.145 (talk • contribs)

Red links as a reason for banning users
has built a bunch of UW warning templates to tell-off editors who include redlinks into their edits, see the TfD discussion where they are being considered for deletion. Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 27

76.66.197.250 (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links and foreign language articles
One of the ways of handling red links is shown as
 * The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. In this case, translation into English is recommended.

May I suggest that this be rewritten as:
 * The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. If such an article would meet the English Language Wikipedia notability criteria, then translation into English is recommended, otherwise it should be linked to the appropriate article in the foreign language version of Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have any objection to me amending to article with the above text? This text has been around for three months without any response. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the subject is not notable enough to have an article here, then it should not be linked at all. To link it to an unreliable source (Wikipedia) in a different language may be useful for articles which would otherwise be correct redlinks, but not for subjects which should not have an article here. At List of Franco-Belgian comic series, we have opted to use redlinks with a superscript link to a foreign language Wikipedia article about the notable subjects. Fram (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. This is the first sensible proposal that I have seen which addresses this topic.  Any views regarding the Dutch link in Highway route markers?  This differs from other links because it is quite clear to the reader that they are about to go to a Dutch language site. Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to a different Wikipedia version has been made explicit (by adding the 'nl:'), so that's good. I would prefer to have a redlink to the English equivalent article though, but perhaps that isn't really necessary in this case (it's a notable subject for which a paragraph here may be sufficient). It's the kind of thing that perhaps should be decided on a case by case basis. Fram (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My proposed rewording:
 * ''The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. If such an article meets the English Language Wikipedia notability criteria, then translation into English is recommended in anticipation of the article being written, otherwise it should be linked to the appropriate article in the foreign language version of Wikipedia. Such links can be made by:
 * * Expicitly including the langauge flag in front of the article name; for example the article Highway route markers has a short section on Dutch highway route markers.
 * * Creating the language as a subscript; seer examples in List of Franco-Belgian comic series.
 * Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would replace the "notability" bit with a more general mention to our local policies and guidelines: notability is not the only criteria for inclusion hold around here. And even more, even if we agree that there should be an article about X, the article's content is another thing. A foreign article may be "all plot" and be acceptable at its own wikipedia if its community hadn't been active enough as to adress specific concerns such as how to deal with articles on fiction; such an article shouldn't be simply "translated" here

Fram, remember that if an article is not written in this project, it does mean that the topic isn't notable: it can simply mean that the users at this project, perhaps by systemic bias, never came to consider the topic at all and never took any desition on whenever it deserves an article or not. For example, I would seriously doubt that anyone would have ever considered here that Bernardo de Monteagudo shouldn't have an article (see es:Bernardo de Monteagudo) MBelgrano (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean that "it doesn't mean", probably. Anyway, that's my position as well, I am all for keeping redlinks for any subject that may have an article here one day, no matter if there are articles on other Wikipedia versions yet or not. Fram (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recording redlink creation in article history?
I wonder if there is a way for the wiki software to record the first creation of a redlink somewhere in the edit history once an article is created there? I.e. in article Foo User X creates a redlink for article Foo2. User Y then creates article Foo2, but at present there's no record in the edit history of Foo2 that User X was involved. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Red links to deleted articles
This page says:
 * nor should they have red links to deleted articles.

So someone writes an article about a guy named William Shakespeare who teaches physics at Mayfield High School. It gets deleted for non-notability. A red link in another article mentions that there's an English playwright by that name. No article about the playwright exists yet, so there's a red link to a deleted article. I think we need to qualify the quoted statement above to allow for this situation. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need - to me it looks like a solution in search of a problem. The playwright and the teacher are not the same person. Thus it won't actually be a previously deleted article if it is about an entirely different person/subject that just happens to have the same name. Roger (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. The article about the playright doesn't exist yet; the person deleting the link doesn't know that it's not the same person that the deleted article wrote about because he hasn't seen the deleted article. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger that this is a solution in search of a problem. I think this is a very rare occurrence (I am a frequent deleter of these links, this problem has only happened to me once, and it was quickly corrected by another editor). By FAR the majority of links to deleted articles relate to that deleted article.  And if the article was deleted via a deletion discussion, the editor can usually tell by the discussion what the subject of the article was.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are cases when an article may get deleted, but without it being a statement that there shouldn't be an article under that name. For example, test edits, or an attack article to a notable person with no earlier "good" version. In such cases, the red links should stay MBelgrano (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the removal of lists from the first paragraph. The sentence does not say "don't use redlinks in lists"; it says "don't use redlinks in lists as an a article creation guide," and I think there is broad consensus for the latter. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More on notable people
List of alumuni often contain lists of people whao are not particulalry notable and quite rightly such people should be removed from the lists. However it sometimes happens that people of reasonable prominence do not have Wikipedia articles written about them, but they have been well documented elsewhere. One such person was a South African cricketer of the year, but whose cricketing career came to an end before the advent of the internet. As a result there is very little about him on the Internet. Martinvl (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means write an article from offline sources; books, magazines, journals, newspapers etc. and If you think the person should be included in a list while redlinked, and someone removes it stating they don't think the person is notable so they don't merit a link to invite an article, simply state in an edit summary something when adding (or adding back) the link: "very notable; merits and article; lots of reliable sources, just not much online" or list some sources on the talk page in conjunction with the edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Discouraging bio-redlinks
My feeling, having cleaned up a number of one-time redlinks to biographical articles that wound up being utterly incorrect and misleading, is that bio-redlinks should be more strongly discouraged than they are presently. All that's currently noted, in "when to create redlinks", is the case when redlinks to non-notable people become misleading, but we also get wrong links out of notable people with common or even not-highly-distinctive names. If we're to apply the Jimmy Wales principle that "no information is better than wrong or misleading information", that argues for tending more strongly to not wikilink biographical articles unless there's already an article in place that you know to be the person you mean. I'm interested in making some test changes to the guideline language, but wanted to solicit opinion first. Thoughts? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I have created many articles from bio-redlinks, and feel they should be more strongly encouraged. The only places were redlinks should be discouraged is on everything potentially negative or contentious, e.g. articles about criminal activities, lists of porn stars, lists based on ethnicity or religion, ... But e.g. articles on soccer teams or cycling teams may have and should have redlinks to indicate missing biography articles, if these future biographies can be reasonable expected to meet WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's okay for Wikipedia to be incorrect and misleading as long as it isn't defamatory? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not, thanks for putting words in my mouth. Incorrect and misleading information should be corrected. However, my position is that discouraging redlinks is not the way to do this. Disagreeing with your solution doesn't mean that I claim there is no problem. Fram (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asking whether that was a valid interpretation of what you're saying. Evidently it isn't.  Is it correct to say, then, that you consider that the onus of this issue belongs with the editor who creates a biographical article, who needs to check "What links here" and determine whether inbound wikilinks are appropriate? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. Chaos, are you saying that "Argel Fratz won the game" is inaccurate and misleading, but that the identical sentence, sans redlinks ("Argel Fratz won the game") is not inaccurate or misleading?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that when an unsuspecting editor creates an article about Argel Fratz, the astronaut, as opposed to Argel Fratz the competitive beer pong player who was being referenced in "Argel Fratz won the game", now we have a misleading statement placing Argel Fratz the astronaut in a beer pong competition that he has a solid alibi for, while denying Argel Fratz the beerpongist his accolades. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With a red link?
 * The red-linked statement provides precisely the same connection to 'Argel Fratz the astronaut' as the unlinked statement. A reader who looks at the red link "Argel Fratz" and concludes that it refers to the astronaut will make the same false assumption about the unlinked name.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still failing to get it across. Once the aforementioned unsuspecting editor creates his Argel Fratz article, about the astronaut, the red link in the Beer Pong Championship 2010 article is not a red link any more, but a blue link to an article on someone other than Argel Fratz the beer pong champion.  Do you see now? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot more sense; thanks for explaining it.
 * Do you have any idea how often this happens? Can you name any specific examples?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any idea statistically. I'm trying to remember the instances I've repaired; one was a list of bio-links, probably all originally red, in CD gamedriver and mudlib.  When I cleaned it up, the links to Johan Andersson and Dave Richards had become inaccurate blue links.  I've done similarly in other places, but I'm drawing a blank on exactly where right now.  Sometimes it's not so bad because the link has wound up just going to a dab page (though I think so far 100% of the time in my experience the actual person in question hasn't been on it). &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Re WhatamIdoing's question, it is very common for incoming links to an article with an ambiguous title to be a mess, in need of disambiguation. But to know they are a mess and fix them (disambiguate them), we first have to allow incoming links to be created.  I think it totally irrelevant whether the incoming link is to a blue or red link.  I think Wikipedia is harmed by editors who systematically remove redlinks, especially redlinks on disambiguation pages.  The existence of a redlink on a disambiguation pages increases the likelihood that all editors will use the same redlink.  I just created the article Ken Shirk after finding two (more?) different redlinks to variants of his name, all intending him.  I added what I thought was the most appropriate redlink to the disambiguation page Cowman.  Other editors repeatedly removed the redlink and told me to first create the article and when I objected they threatened me with an ANI.  Why should I be required to write the article?  Why can't I just clean up the incoming links?   69.3.72.9 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cowman Publishing Company
I am confused. Why should we create a red link for an article whose subject is not Notable? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Make that redlinks (plural). Why do you think it is not notable?  The related publisher Zondervan is notable.  And Charles Cowman and his wife are notable, even though Wikipedia does not yet have articles about them. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I am still confused because the question wasn't answered. I don't think any given publishing company is Notable just because somebody, somewhere, thinks it is. For example, my ex-wife has published two books (mine and hers) under the rubric Quail Creek Press, but that endeavor is certainly not Notable. How does anybody know that any given subject is Notable until an article is written and other editors have had a crack at evaluating it? Still puzzled, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See the Wikipedia guideline on notability. —EncMstr (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear EncMstr: I rather resent the cavalier way you flipped me off. Maybe somebody else can take as much time to answer the question as I took to write it. Sincerely, your colleague, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the link EncMstr gave you? Far from being a "flip off" it is in fact a comprehensive and authorotative answer. It is Wikipedia's official Notability policy. Another page I believe you would find useful is WP:AGF. Roger (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GeorgeLouis, sorry if I seemed overly terse. The notability guideline is a central tenet of Wikipedia and has been carefully crafted to cover your questions.  Please review it and see if any questions remain.  Regards, —EncMstr (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding creation of certain types of red links
I just moved one sentence on what redlinks not to create down the appropriate subsequent section. I did not feel that this constituted a substantive edit requiring discussion. I also propose importing a sentence on redlinked categories from WP:CAT into the 'what not to create' section. I think it's important enough to merit mention here. It reads as follows: "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I propose to create the shortcut WP:REDNOT to take readers directly to the "Avoiding creation of certain types of red links" section. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be no opposition to the above, I've gone ahead and implemented these two additions. I've also taken the liberty of changing the section level of "Avoiding creation of certain types of red links" as it didn't seem to me to be a subset of the prior "Creating red links," but rather, a new section -- especially now that we've added to its content. If you disagree, please state your reasons here, or if you feel really strongly, revert that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What proof is there that red links help WP grow?
I really doubt the following statement. Has anybody been able to check the source to see if it is accurate and not just wish-fulfillment?

Furthermore, academic research conducted in 2008 has shown that red links help Wikipedia grow.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup template for excessive redlinks
Please note that I have posted a question about a suitable cleanup template for excessive redlinks on the cleanup template talk page. Please reply there if you wish to discuss this.  Schwede 66  18:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks in navboxes
The policy on redlinks in navboxes is:

Red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, or pointed with templates such as or , since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.

This needs to be changed because we're getting stuff like this. Specifically, the policy needs to, at a minimum, explicitly allow redlinks in navboxes where the redlinks are part of a series (e.g. a set of election articles). Miracle Pen (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Links removed.
There are now no such things as red links on the English Wikipedia. RCSprinter123 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Say what?? I don't think so. S  B Harris 17:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding Red Links To Long Existing Articles
I just now encountered this policy after I removed some red links added to a long standing existing article. It seems to me the policy needs to distinguish between using red links when an editor creates a new article or makes substantive contributions to an existing article and red link "bombing" a long standing article. By red link "bombing" I am referring to the practice of some editors of just adding wiki links to anything without first investigating their existence and, if nonexistent, at least going as far as to create a stub article on the intended subject. IMHO, the policy should be so revised to distinguish between an editor using red links in his/her own work and the "bombing" editors who just add red links to others works without any additional value added.

FWIW, if there is a way to age red links I would do the analysis to see if red links really are really helping Wikipedia. With no data at all, I suspect red links, particularly those added by "bombing" editors, stay around for a long time and really add no value. Tom94022 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Coach Ray Meyer
There is currently a disambiguation. It can be removed due to: his basketball camp was indeed in a rural area that is part of the town of Three Lakes, WI 54562. The camp was on Reed Road. Wikipedia has a posting on the Town of Three Lakes, Wisconsin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.183.106 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC) James Morley

Editor deliberately introducing redlinks to an article
The article in question is Leon Patillo and the link is to a band that doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Please see the discussion at Talk:Leon Patillo and feel free to advise there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Redlinking to personal names
I've added a paragraph on this point to the WP:REDNOT section, which I believe accurately reflects consensus in various discussions, mostly regarding list articles, and I believe should be noncontroversial. I don't think it really goes much beyond what's said in WP:BLP; the point is simply that personal names are rarely unique, and that the problems with associating the wrong individual with a particular name outweigh any possible benefit from creating a redlink to a personal name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a counter argument that if the namesake of a notable person is named in an article, a stub should be created for the namesake (and possbibly a disambiguation page) to ensure that another editor does not link the namesake with the notabel person. I acknowledge that this does not happen very often, but one such instance was in the artcile Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.  It appeared that bride and groom had a common ancestor, Sir Thomas Fairfax.  This was immediately linked to the English Civil War leader "Thomas Fairfax", both in Wikipedia and in the national press.  Their common ancestor was in fact lived a century earlier, so I created the article "Thomas Fairfax (Gilling)" to ensure that the original artcile (and articles Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge) were linked to the correct Thomas Fairfax.  Also, it might help the press get their facts correct as well! Martinvl (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I really think this paragraph should be reviewed after the drama at Western Australian state election, 1933 where an editor has been edit warring based on a strict interpretation of the paragraph as if it were policy. It seems unnecessary guidance, if literally interpreted creates an unbelievable maintenance nightmare especially for editors dealing with historical topics where *most* of the names will be redlinks, and should be either rewritten or removed. Orderinchaos 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Like this one
What will we do when e.g. some famous artist releases a song named Like this one? ^^ SpeakFree (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then someone should go to User:King of Hearts, the protecting admin or to WP:RPP and ask for the page to be unprotected so the article can be created. GB fan (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the problem, it is used as an example red link. Then the thing to do is create the article at a disambiguated title such as Like this one (song)  GB fan (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or one could merely change the code to like this one . SpeakFree (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of Lamest edit wars. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

clarify wording to include series of bestselling novels are allowed to be red linked in template
We are arguing over the meaning of the word "series" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dale_Brown so I figured I'd mention it here. Long have templates for authors included their list of works, red link or not, to be complete. Template:Hemingway and Template:William Blake are two examples mentioned of this still happening. The template of Dale Brown has had its red links removed. 

This guideline page currently reads Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.

I felt the definition of the word "series" was the one used in the dictionary. It even gives an example as the succession of volumes of related books. Some state that's not the intention of the wording on this guideline page. So some clarifications are in order before all red links of series of books by famous writers are removed from the many templates that have them.

How many support changing it to "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, novels, etc."?  D r e a m Focus  03:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that in a case where you had a numbered series of novels, or other things with a clearly recognizable order. Just being a "set" doesn't cut it unless the set clearly identifies itself as such. A group of novels set in the same fictional universe isn't the same case.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, you simply refuse to get the point. You are told times and again that bestsellers do not merit being in Wikipedia just because they are bestsellers, let alone have red links. (Even the closing admin of Articles for deletion/Flight of the Old Dog told you that: Sheer number is not a good excuse.) It is time you dropped the stick and backed away from the dead horse. For the record, I personally disagree with any form of red link in navboxes because they hamper navigation, but since there is previous consensus on a small exception, I don't object. Still, I do not agree with stretching the exception either. Fleet Command (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong but we seem to have WikiProject or Taskforce dedicated to removing red links from templates. I don't remember its name but am I completely wrong? Fleet Command (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic. We're not discussing how bestselling novels almost always get their articles kept at AFD, but instead focusing on the red links in the templates connecting series of books.  Do you have a comment on that?   D r e a m Focus  12:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Stay on topic", this guy says. Did you even read your own heading? We are talking about bestselling novels and I say bestselling novels don't always have the right to have an article let alone a red link. WP:WTAF. I know what I am talking about and you know what I am talking about; feel free to deny it, though others may not. Fleet Command (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kww that a series of novels or books that are otherwise part of an acknowledged set should be included fully in navboxes and templates, whether red linked or not. Since what we are discussing here is indeed a series for said author, the red linked books that have yet to be created should be included. Silver  seren C 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If series are specified, the language should probably be qualified to make it specific to already published books, i.e., so we do not have the red-linked name if the next two not-yet-published but announced books in the series in the navbox.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
 * So can you show me any source that indicates that the red-linked material is a part of a "series"? That they could be considered a "numbered series of novels" or have a "clearly recognized order"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe wherever they sell the books they list the order, and also inside books they list the order of that series. It isn't really hard to find that out.  The articles for the writers already list their works, grouped in each different series they have done.   D r e a m Focus  16:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any evidence beyond your belief?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, the "Patrick McLanahan Series" is a series and is labeled as such in that navbox. Silver  seren C 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's labeled as such in the navbox, certainly, and I can find a few review sites that seem to consider them that way. Strangely enough, the books themselves don't seem to be marketed as a series: the covers don't appear to be marked as "Patrick McLanahan #16" or anything of the sort.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Barnes and Nobles shows the order and by that name. Executive Intent (Patrick McLanahan Series #16)   D r e a m Focus  00:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Issues related to Template:Dale Brown are being addressed in that talk page and if your arguments are to be accepted you don't need to change anything in this policy page. Therefore, if you are hear to attract external input you have chosen the wrong venue. Now who is being off topic? Fleet Command (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So with famous writers like Template:Ernest_Hemingway, should we keep the red links there? See the Non-fiction fiction, and you can see books red linked which aren't part of a series at all.  With Template:J. R. R. Tolkien you can see that all of his works are there, and those few that don't have an article for them, instead of having red links are just left as regular text.  I don't know of any rule that says templates have to include only links in them. Help:Template But it would be misleading to list some of the works of an author and not all of them.  If there is nothing to link to, can we agree to just to remove the link entirely, but keep the name of the relevant works listed?   D r e a m Focus  15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a point with Ernest Hemingway (and other really famous authors of the sort). All of their navboxes have their works redlinked that don't have articles yet. And if you try to remove those, the more academic editors are going to be extremely angry. I don't have an issue with red links in navboxes, personally. I see them as also a source of information that is much more readily available than searching through an entire article for them. Silver  seren C 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have a point but Other stuff exists is an argument that should be avoided. In time, I might pay a visit and delete red links there. Fleet Command (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps I do that sometimes later. Time is precious and I have a life outside Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would only take you a few seconds, but you know your work will be reverted instantly if you try anything on any of those authors, since they have far more watchers to those pages to notice and complain.  D r e a m Focus  16:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it won't take a few seconds; it takes a few seconds plus a responsibility. And yes, I do except they might be reverted... by you. Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, have the appropriate Wikiprojects been notified? I came here from Wikiproject Books, but who else was notified? We clearly need more participation than the four of us here. Silver  seren C 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Wikiprojects should be contacted for something like this?  D r e a m Focus  16:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not I'm an "academic editor" but I do a lot of work on Hemingway, and I support having the red-links. It's a way of letting us know which articles still need to be created and honestly I'm grateful for to whomever set up the nav template in the first place. Yesterday I was looking at one (can't remember who, but will try to find it) that had blue link and the uncreated pages were in black. If a new editor, or even an experienced editor, decides to create one of the red-linked pages the link turns blue on the nav template and it's one less step. If a template has uncreated articles in black the editor has to be aware of that and change it which requires another step. I don't think red-links hurt anyone, they're easy to turn blue, and they cost nothing. I'd like to see them stay. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for sharing your opinion. But I am afraid personal opinions of individual Wikipedians may not override policies or guidelines unless an overwhelming consensus is formed. If I may say so, I personally hate red links. I believe they are useless eyesores that deter navigation. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was here in response to SilverSeren's notification at Wikiproject Novels. But, as an individual Wikipedian with an opinion, I'll be on my way. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't take offense so quickly, dear Truthkeeper88; angry mastodons are extinct after all. Perhaps SilverSeren meant you to discuss the topic at hand instead of giving your individual opinion, hoping that you can give us a new perspective or reason, or mention a policy that we have overlooked. As for your own personal opinion, I advise you to read Write the article first for another take on the matter. Eventually, we can discuss it under a new heading or elsewhere if you so wish. Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their own individual opinions, obviously, we're not a bunch of sheep. If everyone believes something should be changed, then it will be.  So far everyone agrees in some change, other than you.  Five people want at least some change, while one person is against it.  Consensus is clearly for a change.   D r e a m Focus  09:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Five people want change? Wow, man, you remind me of an old joke: "There are three types of people: Those who know how to count and those who don't." Return here when you learn to count, so I can tell you that even if two dozens want the change, the guideline will not change unless correct procedure of proposal, consensus gathering and acceptance is followed. Fleet Command (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is how the changes on all guideline pages are done. You seem to be rather confused.  Check the history of any of the pages, and look at their talk pages.  We have an agreement that red links for a series of books is fine, just need to agree upon the wording.   D r e a m Focus  09:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't comment on how things are done since it is the most insignificant part of your argument. The most significant part is that you assert five people are in favor the change while six have participated and apart from Truthkeeper88 (who is in favor of all sorts of red links) you are the only one who is in favor of the change. From the remaining four, three have expressed direct disagreement. Seriously, Dream Focus, how old do you think we are? Four? Fleet Command (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set
 * I think whole set already covers the templates of authors and their whole set of works. I won't bother arguing that point, since I honestly don't care if the template has red links or just no link at all, as long as all their works are listed.   D r e a m Focus  10:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DF is correct about the way these things are done. You could make an RFC out of it if you have a strong desire to see wider input. The particular case that spawned this is a different issue, because I'm still not satisfied that the Dale Brown books meet the language. If they "were" a numbered series, there probably wouldn't be much controversy. There is a limit, though: I don't think anyone would argue that the existence of Action Comics 1 would justify an "Action Comics" template with one blue link and 635 red links. I hope I didn't just violate WP:BEANS, though.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * no, the sentence "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created" in the policy overrules the right to add redlinks for series and so, and together they should be read as "redlinks for parts of a series may be included in a navbox, but only if those redlinks are about notable subjects". Additionally, they should make the navbox too large, very long series should not be listed individually in the navbox, but in groups. Fram (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kww: See my reply above. But I am also not satisfied about Dale Brown template. My three reasons for rejecting red links there remains unchallenged. Even if we accept this proposal of Dream Focus, he still may not keep the red links there. Fleet Command (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to make this personal. I already said I don't care if there are red links or not, its just incredibly stupid to list some books and not all of them.  As long as the books are listed for the author, its fine.   D r e a m Focus  16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would completely violate the purpose of a navbox. A navigation box is for navigation. It isn't a spammed brief copy of "List of whatever". I would object to large blocks of plain text more strenously than I would to red-links.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TEMPLATE says its "A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages." Maybe its a navbox, maybe its something else, I don't know.  Been reading through various pages there, and its not exactly clear or well organized.  I don't see anywhere that says you have to have only links in it.  This does aid in navigation though showing what order the books came in, and what books have articles and which ones do not so you don't waste time searching.  If someone read one book and wanted to know the order of things, that'd be helpful at a glance.   D r e a m Focus  17:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a navigation template, and WP:NAVBOX applies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. I started a topic on this on the proper guideline's talk page.   I see no rule saying no plain text is allowed.  And if so, we can discuss changing that for this.   D r e a m Focus  19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An essay, eh? Okay, I'll give you something stronger than a policy: How about a founding pillar of Wikipedia? WP:NOTDIRECTORY say that Wikipedia is not a directory and may not list just everything you fancy. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also bans lists of indiscriminate items two of which you have put in Template:Dale Brown. WP:NOTADVERT also says that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for Dale Brown. Oh, remember that What Wikipedia is not is a founding pillar of Wikipedia, not an essay. Fleet Command (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawpoll to clarify things
Since there is apparently some debate over what people said and meant, everyone please state things here plainly and keep all discussion in the section above. How many believe the navbox templates for notable authors should be allowed to have red links in them?
 * Support  D r e a m Focus  19:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per What Wikipedia is not; more specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTADVERT. Fleet Command (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a binary question, as has been explained to you until I'm blue in the face: A few red-links scattered in amongst a large group of blue ones? No problem. A group of red-links (or unlinked plain text) that is a substantial percentage of the potential links? Not acceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)