Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 3

Redirects for singles/songs to album article
I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect which may be relevant to this page too. (the question is: "I see Category:John Lennon songs, Category:Bob Dylan songs contains many album songs, presumably so that Users can find them in A-Z using category. Is this practice encouraged/discouraged?" ) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Red links in disambiguation pages
Some editors seem to have the mistaken impression that red links should not be in disambiguation pages, citing Disambiguation dos and don'ts - but it explicitly doesn't say that. It says, "Don't add red links that aren't used in any articles." - So, rather explicitly, you can use them if an article includes that red link. My text matches up with MOS:DABRL. Also, apologies to - I missed your edit summary and thought you didn't leave one. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have re-reverted User:Ego White Tray, because under the WP:BRD cycle. the discussion should take place after the revert, when the article is back to its "stable" version.


 * Ego White Tray's edit was to add:-
 * ===Disambiguation pages===
 * Use of red links should be limited on disambiguation pages. The whole point of such a page is to direct the reader to the correct article, so a red link does not help. There are some cases, however, where it is acceptable. Only add them if the red link clearly should be the topic of the article AND there is an existing article to link to in the same line. 


 * WP:DDD is effectively a summary of MOS:DABRL and I see no difference in their advice on this, albeit DABRL's is slightly more detailed. "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." This is not the same as "if the red link clearly should be the topic of the article AND there is an existing article to link to in the same line." The red link may well not be appropriate as "the topic of the article"


 * I am not keen to just add the MOS:DABRL text, as IMHO, that is also imprecise. As worded, the blue link could point to a page that does not even include the disambiguated term, provided the term has a red-link somewhere on Wikipedia. This could be overcome with "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when the blue link on that line, is to an article that already includes that red link."


 * However, I suspect very few people will be aware of this policy/advice when adding a red-link to a disambiguation page. Furthermore, I wonder if those that do know will just add unnecessary red-links to articles, in order to have a red-link in the disambiguation page. We have numerous sections, such as this that are already over-run with red-links, all of which can be red-linked on a disambiguation page.


 * I am also unclear what the benefit of a red-link in a disambiguation page is supposed to be? There is no rule precluding an entry with a "black-link" i.e. no link to the direct use, provided there is a blue-link to a relevant page. I know red-links mislead some readers - going to a page to find out more information, only to find that there is no more information. so what benefit is having the red-link? If editors think there is a benefit, could the use of red-links in a disambiguation page be restricted to when the term is discussed in some detail, rather than just mentioned in passing, or included in a list? - Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think the solution is as simple as providing targeted links instead of general ones. Right now, our intro text says "Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages link to Disambiguation or templates." Instead, we keep the text the exact same, but link to WP:DABRL. We don't really need to provide any detail on it here. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Personally. I'd like to change the "sometimes" to "in certain circumstances" or something to indicate that there are additional requirements which need to be met. Any opinions on that? As for my disliking the MOS:DABRL text, I guess I need to take it up on that page. Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is a lot of merit in that - it avoids duplicating text, which will only become outdated if WP:DABRL ever changes. It also points to the relevant section, not a whole article.
 * WP:DDD is contradicts MOS:DABRL; because some cite DDD is holy writ, while it fails to include the discretion that is paramount in Wikiland; see MOS:DABRL. For most geographic disambiguation pages, some editors delete redlinks, without checking for in-coming links, nor do they consider whether the page is (regardless of how its categorized) a set index MOS:DABNOTINDEX. Because redlinks can properly be in dab pages or set index pages posing as dab pages; I have reverted Arjayay's reversion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy question - red links
To what extent is the creation of red-links either a) vandalism, or b) counter to "over linking" as currently defined?

This is part of an on-going dispute I am attempting to resolve. With thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 21:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question is ancient history by now... Do you still want an answer? I may be able to give you one if so.  At least I'd be willing to give it a shot.   KDS 4444  Talk   23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the default color weren't RED nobody would care how many red links there were
The red color is essential to people's dislike of these links, and their desire to be rid of them. Do you really care how many blue vs. light blue links there are? No. Red links beg to be "fixed" since red is the color of emergency. But my perennial proposal that some other default color be chosen, always meets the same people who say "Everthing is fine the way it is. Don't fix what isn't broken." So I propose that that should be the answer to people who have red link disputes, also. Everything is fine. It doesn't matter how many there are. People don't mind looking at them. If you think otherwise, clearly you are crazy. Don't fix what's not broke. S B Harris 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The red colour is essential to people's dislike of these links, and their desire to be rid of them." This is precisely why we keep it red. —WFC— 01:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad reason. Since WP is a work perpetually in progress (see WP:NOTFINISHED) there should be no pressure created over parts of it that aren't done. It will always have parts that aren't done, no matter what color these links are, and their color will not change the fact that a healthy fraction of links don't go anywhere at any given time. These non-working links are the buds of new growth, and it's incredibly stupid to make them color of blood and wounds and inflammation. All it does is make people angry, and do irrational things to get rid of these red links, like write useless stubs, or remove link brackets, and all manner of unhelpful stuff. Last but not least, their very presense, though healthy, encourages arguments merely because the color is irritating. Perhaps the color has even convinced you to have your view of them, which is wrong. The solution is not to use an irritating color for these healthy links. Why is that so hard to see? S  B Harris 01:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The crux of your argument appears to be that you [Sbharris] are right and those who disagree are "wrong" and "crazy", while simultaneously arguing that people will act more intelligently and/or conservatively if we change the colour. Although it is of course your right to do as you see fit, I would suggest that you will need more persuasive points to convince others. I will spend a bit of time on this though, so that I can at least hold my head up and say that I tried. Let's say for arguments' sake that I accept that a change in link colour would make people less inclined to create bad stubs – I'm sure we both agree that there are stubs out there which are as bad as or worse than nothing. What is that achieving? The answer is not to take steps to reduce article creation, it is to ensure that promising articles get developed, that articles with no potential get deleted, redirected, or merged into broader ones, and that articles which probably shouldn't exist are not red-(or any other colour-)linked in the first place. —WFC— 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all of that takes time, since it represents a fair amount of work that volunteers may have to save up (or time for the right volunteer to happen by). Which is why a link-that-goes-nowhere should be marked as an invitation to create a decent stub (one that has more information than the original red-link implied) or an article, merge, or redirect (occasionally, removing the link is the answer-- all this is discussed on the page for which this is the TALK). But this invitation to do something should be an invitation, not a red flagged demand for action. Red is a color that suggests that this task (whatever it is), is some kind of WP emergency. We want a color that does not makes people ask "where's the fire?" It should not be a color that makes people uncomfortable to gaze at, in the meantime. The unwanted associations that come with default-red would suggest that this "invitational marker color" for dead internal links could/should be literally anything but red. Even orange would be better. Though personally I like green, any change from the present would be an improvement. That is the crux of my argument. The idea that people are crazy if they think our present default-red is great, when it's quite obviously causing problems (see this entire page), is merely a corollary to my other reasoning. Feel free to refute it with your good reasons in opposition. If you're not crazy and there's something here I'm missing, feel free to remind or enlighten me. S  B Harris 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think WFC has a decent point that merits discussion and shouldn't be ignored on the "it's fine" argument. If you look around the web, you'll see very few respected websites using red text for anything other than extremely important messages. On Gmail, red is reserved for messages that someone in Ukraine accessed your account. On a Mac computer, the status symbols in the top-right are always black unless something needs immediate attention (such as the battery is almost dead). So, I don't think red is the best color for article-less links. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is quite general. Coincidentally in the news today is a funny and whimsical science study that found that people on a diet eat less food (and thus fewer calories) if they are required to do it off a red colored plate! It's a color that seems designed to turn off your parasympathetic nervous system (feeding and fooling around) and turn on your sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight). We've all seen the fights and flights right here on WP. It's silly to encourage that, for this. S  B Harris 02:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree they should be changed a different color.  D r e a m Focus  12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I began reading this section thinking, "Change out the red links? Oh boy, this is gonna be good!"  And then I read over it, and I came out at the other end thinking, "You know, maybe green isn't a bad idea."  I am the first author of around five dozen Wikipedia articles so far, and I can tell you that as en editor and a writer, I have deliberately avoided putting a red link into an article I am working on because it is red.  Isn't that stupid?  Totally.  I shouldn't be deterred from putting a link in an article that I myself am creating simply because of its color!  But as has already been said: red is the color of emergency, of urgency, of it's-broken-hurry-fix-it!  Even when it isn't really broken, just not yet finished.  I don't like putting red links in articles I write because it makes me feel like I am doing a bad job.  Because they are red.  On the other hand, I suspect that there is a pattern among some editors of dropping red links into articles for topics that those editors would like to see created...  by someone else.  This strikes me as rude.  But whatever.  Except that it's red.  Which is the color of irritation, of stop-lights, of watery eyes, of anger.  It's just flipping red, right?  Yeah...  just red like a toreador's cape (bulls are colorblind, I know, but you get the idea).  Green comes with none of that baggage.  So as I stand here now, I am willing to say that I would support a transition to green.  Of course, that is going to require a total sea change in the structure of the 'pedia, and the resistance is going to be staunch.  But for what it is worth, I think that changing to green would be the right thing to do, for everyone, in the end.  If only there were some kind of supreme court we could take this to.  I am afraid that instead it will languish forever in the pile of "good ideas we didn't really have the courage to execute."  Que' lastima. But a good idea.    KDS 4444  Talk   23:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No red links
"Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as.., 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, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc."

I strongly disagree with this. I've created dozens of nav boxes with red links and they've proved to be very constructive. If notable articles are missing they should be red linked in nav boxes so long as there is a conscious ongoing effort to blue link them. It's different if the majority of links are red, but if most are blue and red links are added to coordinate an effort and are part of a set to improve coverage they should NOT be removed. I recently had red links removed from a director template when I had intended working on blue linking them, that isn't constructive if they're part of a set.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also WP:EXISTING which encourages articles to be created first. Navigation templates are for navigation between articles belonging to a set that are already in existence (per this guideline: "these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles").  They are not a substitute for filmography articles.  It may be that the films in the filmographies will never get articles.  Until they do, they should not be added to the templates.  You can use the redlinks in the filmography article to create the articles, not the navigation template.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (And, incidentally, on the navbox in question the majority of links were red ) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually fall the other way here, in that the exception shouldn't be made for the examples given above and should be removed. Navboxes shouldn't be used as a substitute for articles, which seems to happen all too often.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that makes it awkward.And read what I have to say about per WP: on my user page. If I'm working through creating the articles shortly why would it make it easier to add them one by one afterwards? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not add them en masse after a number of articles have been created? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you have to keep clicking back and forth to the director page to create them rather than just feed straight off a template into a new article. If I have to make 60 extra clicks to creater 60 articles what's the point just to "abide by the rules"?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I started this conversation on this talk page before. Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_1 It was determined that they'll tolerate red links such as Template:Ernest Hemingway, sometimes they'll turn them into just unlinked entries such as in Template:J. R. R. Tolkien, and sometimes if its not a writer who has a lot of people watching their template to revert them, they'll just remove anything that isn't a blue link, so the template ends up missing some of their books in its list such as at Template:Dale Brown( shows how it was before two determined editors removed it after arguing nonstop on the talk page and elsewhere).  I mention this to point out the problem.  There should be a standard to follow everywhere, not have it argued over local consensus.   D r e a m Focus  14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlinked text is even worse than redlinked. It's almost an admission by the editors that the topics are not notable, and unlikely to become articles.  Navboxes shouldn't be used as a substitute for filmography or bibliography articles, which is essentially what they are if we allow redlinks and unlinked text.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't someone looking over it assume that was the total list of all of their works then? Do we need a disclaimer text saying it isn't a complete list to avoid confusion?   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should they assume that it is anything but a navigation aid between related articles? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob Sinden, whatever REDNOT or any "rule" says, it's still counterproductive to remove red links which can editor states they'll have blue linked within a short period of time. If an editor adds ten red links to a nav template and are clearly working on them then reverting back and obstructing is petty and counterproductive. It then becomes meddlesome and irritating for the editor working on filling them in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to this discussion, and something best left to our conversation on your talk page. However, WP:WTAF.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How it is irrelevant? You've removed red links from a template when I was in the middle of working on them. That's meddlesome. Red links aren't pretty, I agree, but they happen to be one of the most important things on wikipedia for identifying missing articles and encouraging growth.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion to change the guideline, not about a specific incident and temporary "allowance". And incidentally, I had no idea at the time that you were actively working on them.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a point about an excess of red links like 50 odd, but if an editor adds 10 red links and then starts to work on creating them it is definitely not constructive to impede their progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if it was clear that that is what you were doing, maybe we wouldn't have had the falling out. By reverting wholesale against the guideline despite having it pointed out to you, this wasn't obvious.  Fact is, there were about 50 redlinks.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redlinks encourage article creation. If a director's navbox contained some redlinks, there's no problem IMO to leave them there for possible future blue-linkery. It paints a false picture of that director's filmography to show on the blue links, if a portion of their filmography doesn't currently have articles.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's what filmographies are for. Again, I think people confuse filmographies, which are supposed to list the complete works of someone, with navboxes, which are navigational aids between existing articles.  If we keep doing this, then I can envisage a Wikipedia soon where everything is navboxes and there will be no articles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EXISTING states "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first" That doesn't say "You must NOT have redlinks in nav boxes". Very likely and encouraged are the key parts here.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:REDNOT (this guideline), says "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes". Again, the key word is generally - it doesn't say you must NOT have them. Get back to me when you can find a policy that strictly forbids this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly anything is forbidden, but common sense tells you that there is something fundamentally wrong if a navbox contains links to more films than a filmography article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and the whole point of me creating Template:William Beaudine was to work towards blue linking them as soon as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support including redlinks with a caveat Redlinks are useful in cases where there is some clearly-defined or logical set. Otherwise, excluding them actually misleads readers into thinking that there are only five films directed by so-and-so or 10 albums released by such-and-such when in reality there are more. Similarly, "X topic by country" templates shouldn't remove Equatorial Guinea simply because our coverage of that country isn't very good yet. Removing this text or converting it into non-linked plain text will only discourage navigation between these topics. In the case of more general footer navigation, there obvious shouldn't be an infinite list of articles that will never be made. If the wording allows for exemptions for clearly-defined lists or sets which are finite and logical, then I'd definitely support the change. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you deal with something like this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd hide most of the red links until it is being worked on again rather than delete them all.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's an option as far as working on them goes (I believe there's a way to hide content if template is transcluded, but it still shows up in Template: namespace), and I have no problem with that in principle, but the suggestions by the other editors above are that the full filmography should always be shown, otherwise it gives the impression that Lau Lauritzen Sr. only directed half a dozen films. As anyone can see, to implement a full filmography navbox for him would be ridiculous.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary he's a notable director and I thought I was being constructive working towards trying to improve coverage of a large number of films which were almost entirely missing after starting his article. The current guidelines anyway state An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set,  Filmographies are part of a series or set. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These are navboxes - navigation aids. They don't need to be and are not supposed to be complete filmographies.  And a "set" would be something where notability was guaranteed - award winners, etc.  By having the complete "filmography" in the navbox implies that all films included are notable, and of course notability isn't inherited.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Who are you trying to kid? Director templates are intended to cover all major feature films released by directors, it's what we're working towards on wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible. Films directed by a director do constitute a set, and the other WP:EXISTING thing you cited was a false representation of what was written anyway in that they were all intended to be turned into articles in a short period of time. I did state that "I'm working on them" in the edit summary but you reverted again. Sorry, but I've created a load of templates on here and have never had anybody cause disruption like this before to those I'm actively working on.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rob, I assume you'll be removing all the redlinks from NOCin2014WinterOlympics then? Let me know how that works out for you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A Navbox is more than just a navigation aid. It can present a structured array of related topics, some with articles and some without, that is presented in each of the related articles. Avoiding redlinks does not mean topics have to be dropped from the box. NOCin2014WinterOlympics with the redlinks removed looks like:


 * Nothing wrong with that: It gives a complete set of topics, but avoids redlinks. I would strongly oppose any suggestion that navboxes should omit topics for which there is not yet an article, even when the topic clearly belongs in the set.


 * The separate question is whether the entry for Algeria in the example above should be red or black. We can assume that most Wikipedia users understand that clicking on a redlink is just going to take them to the page saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". The redlinks do no harm, and apparently encourage article creation. A redlink to Algeria would be acceptable within an article. I see no reason why it should be unacceptable in a template transcluded into an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I did not think my edit would create this big discussion, but maybe that is a good thing. I found this template with around 50 redlinks (about a third of the links) and thought it was excessive. I thought my deletion of the redlinks was in line with WP:REDNOT and I said so in the edit summary. I am not surprised that I was reverted, and do not really mind it since the articles are being created. Dr. Blofeld wrote on my talk page, "Templates are allowed to have plenty of redlinks, especially if editors are actively working on them." but I would like to point out that having the redlinks already in the template make it difficult for editors to know the links are being actively worked on. I think there could be some reasonable compromise on the number of redlinks/percentage of links and length of time. I would hate to see a template sit around for possibly years at a time with a majority of links being redlinks and no one creating articles. Another point I have seen from my work on music articles is there is an active push to redirect non-notable album/single articles and these musical artist navboxes usually then do not contain the redirects and therefore would not contain the entire discography of the musical artist. I do not know if people see these navboxes as containing the entire discography or not, but they are similar to director navboxes. Aspects (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, but this was created to create the articles within a few days. I even told Rob that I'm in the middle of workong on them yet he persisted on reverting. That's meddlesome and not helpful to editors who are working in good faith towards it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Against altering the guideline. Navboxes are not encylopedic i.e. in the case of red-links in filmographies we can provide a source backing up the claim that an actor appeared in this and that, but we don't have sources in navboxes. If you have red lnks and black links in a navbox it essentially becomes an unsourced list. If we are going to treat them like lists then they should be subject to the same verifiability/sourcing requirements that all lists on Wikipedia are subject to. Navboxes should be restricted purely to navigation aids, and there should be a strict one-to-one relationship between a navbox and an article: a navbox should only be placed on pages that it includes links to, and vice versa i.e. it shouldn't include links to non-existent articles. The way the guideline is worded (i.e. "generally") means that the guideline provides some leeway, which is what Blofeld is asking for. If Blofeld is developing some articles and navboxes in conjunction with each other so that the navbox will briefly include red-links, then the guideline as it currently stands permits this. We have to allow some slack for development, but we shouldn't allow a practise to evolve that would ultimately violate other policies. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's different if nav boxes are full of red links, more than blue long term, but if I add red links to a template with the intention to swiftly blue link them and somebody is obstructing me by removing them just for the sake of the rule this isn't right. There should be some leeway permitted for editors actively building templates and content and a handful of red links in templates should be allowed. It's the ones which are excessively red linked I can see a problem with. I disagree with the notion that all red links should be removed for the sake of it. Some capital cities for instance have some very notable articles missing and identifying them and red linking a few in templates I think is productive and encourages growth. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A navbox can give sources in a ... section. That is redundant when the navbox title links to an article on the subject that gives the sources. The reader would expect a navbox for a well-defined set such as Margraves of Istria to show all members of the set, including those like Englebert I (r. 1090–1096) for whom there is not yet an article. Omitting members that do not yet have articles could be seriously misleading if the set is reasonably small and many members have articles. If a topic is likely to eventually get an article, it should be redlinked. Otherwise it should still be included but not linked. WP:NAVBOX is the relevant guideline. It is neutral on the question of redlinks and nowhere says members of the set that have no article should be omitted. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Aymatth2 and Dr. Blofeld - your points are nicely made. So come on, folks. We're spending a lot of time here juggling rules with sensibility. If an editor creates a navbox and is clearly working on bluelinking the reds, why would another editor want to get in the way of content building by removing the redlinks or just unlinking them? And if a navbox has a well-defined set, and a few members of the set are red, and time marches on, don't you realize that content builders see the reds as opportunity knocking? By the way, I created Benedictine monasteries in Catalonia on November 25 with dozens of redlinks, and within about 10 days, all the reds became blue. Thanks for allowing me to concentrate on article writing vs. linkage discussions. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only an expectation of completeness if you are using a navigation template as a substitute for article space like a WP:List article which achieves the same thing without making the user go looking for articles that do not exist. ::::Also, part of a series (not set) implies a sequence. There is not one.
 * Do not think of nav boxes as a substitute list making device. It's a road map. And there's nothing more frustrating than reading a map which says soething other than the reality. --Falcadore (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Do red links motivate people to write articles?
I once read a research paper claiming that there was evidence that red links motivate people to start an article. I think it was written by Dr Spinnelis but I don't remember the link anymore. Has there been any research on that? Red links are unsighty and make the articles hard to read though... Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red_link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you dear! Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They're considerably less unsightly than many of the content warnings and exhortations that populate pages, that are also intended to elicit edits. --Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation but there's a problem: red links are in the main text, while the various content warnings usually differentiate themselves visually from the style used in the main text, for example by using colored boxes or by using smalled font size or superscripts. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks in infoboxes -- link to discussion
There is a discussion about redlinks in infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Op-ed
Hello everyone- people may be interested to read the Signpost opinion piece about red links which was published today. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view the opinions expressed in this tabloid-style essay seriously lack balance. Much as I like the colour red, I hope this is not the start of an ill-considered campaign to spread red-link graffiti across Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would be willing to restate below, succinctly and in a less inflammatory manner, the cogent parts of your campaign for more red links. Then it might be possible to have some rational discussion and allow more room for viewpoints that may not echo your own. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not interested. You are now willfully misrepresenting my view, and doing your best to make me look like a moron. In my piece, I am arguing for a particular point of view (specifically, that our guideline on red links, which is a good one, is being ignored). You have made quite clear what you think of me, my views and this guideline. I am not going to restate my case- that clearly puts me on the defensive. It is you who doesn't like the guideline, so it is you who has to state your case for changing it. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent your views and I apologize if that is what I have done. I felt you misrepresented my views and were attempting to make people who feel red links should be kept to a minimum seem like bad people, or at least people clinically suffering from some sort of pathology. Some of your supporters felt empowered by your essay to liken people who don't agree with you to vandals. I had the impression that it was you who was trying to change general guidelines by legitimizing the idea that red links should be encouraged everywhere and people who didn't like them should be ridiculed. I'm sorry if you wish to withdraw and not clarify the matter. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that the use of the word erythrophobia could come across as an unjustified attempt at medicalisation, and I certainly accept that my style was colloquial (though I think "tabloid" is taking it a bit far)- I was writing for a Wikipedia editor audience, not an academic or business one! I tried to include arguments against red links and my (brief) responses to them- if you feel that I chose to ignore the best arguments against red links, then I'm sorry; I could only include those I'd come across. To be clear, though, I was certainly not trying to change guidelines by suggesting that "red links should be encouraged everywhere", as the guidelines are already clear that red links are to be encouraged. You could even describe the entire piece as a public and verbose reminder of what our guidelines are. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Your article was well written and skillfully designed to catch attention. Perhaps "tabloid" was taking it a bit far, and maybe I overreacted at what appeared to be an opening of the flood gates. There are certainly what I consider substantive counter views to some of your arguments. Still, I'm not against red links as such if they are used judiciously. When it comes to actual practice you and I might not be that far apart. I'm sorry if I upset you unduly. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that both of you back down a little bit. We are all here in the spirit of AGF, after all. Signpost articles are not supposed to be neutral, and not neutral is a half-serious definition of an op-ed anyway. No need to criticize JM for writing a very nice if biased op-ed (with which I do agree). I do think it should be linked here from see also, just like an average essay would. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

added quote box
Does anyone have this article? Can you please email it to me? Thank you.

Thewhitebox (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes

 * This sentence makes no sense: "But in many cases, a bit more responsibility for creating a red link should be taken to ensure the red link is entirely proper." I sounds like it was written in English, translated into Finnish, then back into English. The previous few sentences explain creating a redlink only for notable things. This is not needed, the previous part explains the rules perfectly without an added caution in poor English. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction: YES redlink to "article that can be created" and NO "article creation guide", so which is it?
The gist of the style guideline is that redlinks to articles that should be created should exist. But then there is this non-sequitor that states the exact opposite: "Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first."

Which is correct? they can't both be correct at the same time. No "article creation guide" contradicts the entire article and it says to NOT create redlinks first. It reads like spam to get people to read the essay WP:Write the article first. It also is undue weight to have a contradiction in the second paragraph. Can it be reworded so it does not contradict the entirety of the guideline. See Talk:Eddie Foy, Sr. and join the discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the contradictory paragraph here for the discussion and demoted the essay to the see also section. It appears to be a dissenting opinion embedded in the guideline
 * "Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."


 * I don't see the conflict or why the text needed to be removed from the guideline. The text is stating that we should not create a bunch of red links simply because we want those articles created. Like the lead of the guideline currently states, "A red link, like red link example, signifies a link to a page that is either non-existent or deleted. 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 the subject is notable and verifiable." We should only create redlinks for WP:Notable topics that are likely to have viable Wikipedia articles. Like WP:Notable states, not all WP:Notable topics need a Wikipedia article; some fit well in an existing article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the content you dispute is guideline material, it should have stayed in the guideline while you dispute the matter on the talk page. The note at the top of the guideline states: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." And I'm not sure what you mean by WP:Due weight, since that policy only applies to Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22, there is no contradiction between "You are allowed to create redlinks" and "...but you are urged to write the article first." BMK (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How about putting 'if a dispute arises about the existence of a red link, consider its notability and write a draft'? (Linking to the Article Wizard.) That has helped me when putting red links into articles. (Although it does nothing for habituating people to red links in articles, and puts the onus onto the person who wants the red link.) I think that the exhortation in the nutshell to only remove red links if you think Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject should be reiterated in the lead. It gets a little lost in the 'how to deal with existing red links' section. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given what we say about "One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start", I do not think it would be helpful to place any onus upon editors creating redlinks, beyond advising them to abide by article naming restrictions and their good faith conviction that the redlinked topic is notable per WP:N. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), do you have anything to state regarding what I stated above? What Beyond My Ken (BMK) stated above? There should be something advising editors not to unnecessarily overlink when it comes to red links, similar to the WP:Overlink guideline. For example, the lead currently states, "Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles." Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

mobile Wikipedia
Please provide more information (in this article) about how en.m.wikipedia.org handles redlinks. 71.178.51.189 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

query
At what point are "future article" red links in an article excessive?

Note Aurelia Greene has red links for 14 articles not yet created for "New York Legislatures" spanning from 185 to 198.

Should a limit of some sort be placed on such mechanical lists of non-existent articles? Or is it likely that since the articles will eventually exist that we should populate biographies with all potential future articles and my amusement is unwarranted? Collect (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That example is just plain bad writing. Even if they were blue links we wouldn't/shouldn't individually list and link the 15 specific numbered legislatures she served in. The fact that 14 of them are redlinks is not the problem. The line should be edited to read: "She was a member of the New York State Assembly from 1982 to 2009." I haven't done that now so as not to destroy the example. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Except User:Kraxler is in fact creating those very articles in chronological order, so it is best to keep them. See for instance 184th New York State Legislature to see how much research goes into each article. You can see where it takes weeks of research to create a single article. While the lede can cay "She was a member of the New York State Assembly from 1982 to 2009", linking to to the session summary is an excellent idea in the body. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it has been standard practice to add blue links to all congresses they were sitting in at US congressmen's bios. I just followed the pattern with state legislators. One of the main basic features of Wikipedia are exactly the blue links which lead the reader to interesting/important context. "She was a member of the NYSA from xxxx to yyyy" will never provide any context. The blue links show what happened in the Legislature while the member was acting there. And yes, there are now 7 blue links and 8 red links at Aurelia Greene, but look at Charles J. Hewitt, the first man to serve 30 years in the New York State Senate, there are 30 blue legislature links, for the interested reader to explore. And if there are no blue links, people tag articles as WP:UNDERLINKed... Kraxler (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal names
"Red links to personal names should be avoided particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual."

This is a little confusing as written. Is a "personal name" the first name of a person as opposed to a surname or a family name? Should it just read "person's name". It also mentions that the name might match up with a sex offender of the same name. Why would we have a list of non-notable sex offenders? I don't think we need to NOT link people's names, we just need to remind people when they create an article to properly disambiguate the person and check the "What links here" button. People's names are probably the most common reason to create a redlink. I do it all the time to see if someone is already in Wikipedia. Otherwise every reader that is curious has to create a red link to see if that person has an article. Almost every list I see is a sea of red names. I have been working on some lists of award winners for over 5 years. See International Polo Cup (redlink version) vs International Polo Cup (no redlink version), how would I know who has a biography and who doesn't unless they are linked. It makes more sense to just NOT have a list of non notable sex-offenders. Does this make sense? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * would you like" names of individuals?" The difficulty of wording policy or guidelines precisely is one of the reason why I regard policy and guidelines as descriptive of what we do. It is the examples that make the guideline, and the exemplification in actual cases that best interprets it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with RAN's suggestion of "person's name" - "individuals" is less plain language. The issue with red linking a name and walking away is that next year someone may create an article for a person with same name who has become notable - as a sex offender, or CEO or Olympic athlete. This creates a misdirect, which would confuse readers. For example, a list of candidates for mayor of Toronto linked a minor candidate named Kevin Richardson. Even if the link had been to "Kevin Richardson (Toronto politician)", there would be a significant risk that when the article is created, it is about a different Kevin Richardson who has run for office. Linking a name and expecting someone else to create the article is a bad idea. Ground Zero | t 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try your wording adjustment. Of course we ought not make lists of people with borderline notability for something negative, and I think there's also a consensus to not include redlinks in lists of people of a specific cultural group. The problem of eds. filling in redlinks  inappropriately is related to the  problem of eds. changing redirects to something inappropriate--most of what I have seen is promotional, not abuse. I think there's been a discussion of technical measures. The use of name qualifiers would help--the likelihood of an example like just mentioned is very much lower than without them, but our current naming policy is to not use them if not necessary. I personally do not agree with that, and think we should follow the practice of some other WPs that use such qualifiers routinely, but this is one of the things I've given up arguing for.   DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Ground Zero. The hypothetical problem is that someone in the future will expand the current list of seven sex offenders and they may match a name somewhere in Wikipedia. Who don't we just more closely monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. It is so much easier than deleting or not creating hundreds of thousands of redlinks of people's names. You can make the same argument to ban bluelinks since they are just as likely to be improperly disambiguated with a name on the existing sex offender list. Just monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. I just did that recently for the scientific misconduct page, where people were adding in their enemies without any context. This was a bluelink problem: Jimmy Wales was on the Terry Gross show and she asked him why the name of her producer linked to a fictional mass murder, he said it was improperly disambiguated and fixed it. The lesson, simple names such as Danny Miller should lead to a disambiguation page, and almost all already do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of listing all the bad things like sex worker and rapists, we just need to comply with BLP. Caution should be used when creating a redlink to a person's name. All the rules that apply to WP:BLP equally apply to redlinked names. When creating a biography from a redlink be sure to use "what links here" to make sure all the incoming links are properly disambiguated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), DGG and Ground Zero, I just read the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" part, and I was confused. I was tempted to alter that text and/or start a discussion about the matter here at this talk page, before I saw that there is already a section about it. Why was I confused? Why was I tempted to change it? That's because the text reads contradictory to me, since, if the person is WP:Notable, then it's common that the person's name should be linked. It's like the WP:Red link guideline is encouraging the creation of a blue link for all notable topics except people. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

From you guys' discussion, it seems that the text is trying to state that the link shouldn't simply be about the name; it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name. But the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" text does not express that well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah, going by what Ground Zero stated in his "12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post above, it's not even about "it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name." Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored the text that was removed because I see a couple of editors expressing a concern that it's not the best wording, but no consensus that it should be removed, or what should replace it. "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided, particularly when the name is used in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual" I'm not seeing an issue with this wording, particularly because it keeps this guideline in line with the BLP policy, which most redlinks aren't directly affected by. Personal names also are far from unique in most circumstances; editors will create wikilinks to a name without checking if it's the same person, even if that article already exists, so care needs to be taken when dealing with BLP subjects. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nav boxes NO red links

 * "Red links generally are not included ... in navigational boxes" Why is that? Of course they should be. How is the reader to know whether the article exists and needs brackets to make a blue link, or we need to have an article on that person. This should be removed. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I don't agree with this removal of text you made. Just like the WP:See also section, WP:NAVBOXES are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not indicate that an article should be created. What the text you removed is stating is that a topic that does not have a Wikipedia article should not be listed in the WP:NAVBOX; so your statement of "if it is important to have the name or place in a navbox" is irrelevant since the topics should not be listed there if they have no Wikipedia articles.


 * I will likely start a WP:RfC on this for input. Generally, I am against significant/huge changes being made to a Wikipedia policy or guideline without significant discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A redlink indicates that an article very probably should be created. The mere existence of the name in the succession box indicates this by itself, since we use these boxes (or should be using them) only for positions that are very likely to imply notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * DGG, are you arguing that we should have red links in the navboxes? If so, the guideline already addresses the one exception to red links being in the navboxes -- the succession box aspect. Otherwise, they should not be there. Including them there doesn't even align with the WP:NAVBOX essay. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've restored the text. There doesn't seem to be consensus for this change. WP:NAVBOX states: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "articles within English Wikipedia".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely redlinks should be permitted in navboxes. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1 for an old discussion on that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello all -- there's a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates about if and when retaining redlinks in navigation boxes is a good idea. Lockley (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A redlink to a person's name should be avoided

 * I still think this needs to be removed "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" it still means to NEVER create a redlink, and is being used that way in arguments to remove all redlinks in Wikipedia articles. Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create." While that may or may not be true, that has nothing to do with the relevance of personal names being used as redlinks. Would you mind giving a link to one of these arguments to remove all redlinks in Wikipedia articles that cites "a redlink to a person's name should be avoided"? Without context I don't really think that's the case, because that seems like a generalization that has no relevance to the merits of the actual content. - Aoidh (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: As seen in the section above, I recently commented about this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of 'likelihood'
As I recently have had two reversions from the same person on the interpretation of 'likelihood', could we please clarify this in the guideline? I think that red links should be created when they link to valid titles - if it happens that they can be covered in other areas of the encyclopedia, then that is what redirects are for. I think the 'likelihood' is being confused into 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because there are few people on wikipedia to make them' or 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because the topic is obscure'. I don't think that these are valid arguments, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and lots of notable, verifiable, and valid topics are obscure if you are outside the field that they crop up in. I would like to see some clarification of what is likely on the article guideline page - I tried to add it in (my first link) but was reverted. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You can go ahead and mention my username; I don't mind. Yes, I reverted you at the Yaoi article. And I stated in that revert, "And how do we know they are WP:Notable? Provide proof on the article talk page. WP:Notable is also clear that not every notable topic should have its own article." You have posted this as your proof. I will respond there. But as for validity, creating a red link just because you think that the title is valid is not valid. Too often, an editor will create a red link just because he or she wants to see an article created for that topic, even when that topic is not WP:Notable or should not have a Wikipedia article per what is outlined in the WP:NOPAGE section of the WP:Notable guideline. Then we are left with an article on a non-WP:Notable topic or a WP:Stub for a topic that will very likely never expand beyond a stub. And, yes, like I stated to you in this revert, if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated "often," not "always." And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various WP:AfDs and the like.


 * I noted in the section above that I will likely be starting a WP:RfC on that particular red link matter. There might be other things to start a WP:RfC on regarding this guideline, since editors are coming here and adding/removing anything they want to/from this guideline as though it's not a WP:Guideline that should typically have WP:Consensus before any significant changes are made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer, I am not at all clear what it is that you disagree with, here. The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we should have, rather than based on what we predict will be created. Do you disagree with that? It seems incredibly reasonable, and clearly consistent with what is said elsewhere in the guideline. There's no change, here, just a clarification. On that note, what on earth does "Do not remove red links unless ... there is no article section to validly redirect the topic (see WP:NOPAGE)" mean? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To your second point, I think the clause about article sections means that a valid red link may be one where the target is a redirect to a section of an article where the notable subject is covered as part of a broader topic. That is the point of WP:NOPAGE. I have attempted to clarify the wording in the guideline. Feel free to tweak further as necessary, although – being a guideline – this point about redirects should probably remain in there unless discussed and consensus achieved to remove it. Of course, where the red link is a redirect, it's very easy to turn it blue by creating the redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being dim here, but I still have very little idea of you are trying to say. Your new wording literally didn't make sense- "Do not remove red links unless ... a redirect to a section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." Also, given that this point was only just added by Flyer, there's no need to get consensus to remove it- I'd say we need consensus to add it. In any case, if it's to stay, it needs to be clearer. I'm sorry if this sounds like a silly request, but could you say in simple English when you believe redlinks should be removed? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point I should let speak for herself. My interpretation, however, was that the point about an article section being a valid target for a red link was already in the guideline, per . So the sentence you're having a problem with is an attempt at clarification, first by Flyer22, then by me. It's not a substantive change to the guideline, as far as I can see, but I might be wrong. Regarding clarity, I'll have to think further about that. Maybe someone else can help. – Wdchk (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm none the wiser. How can "an article section being a valid target for a red link"? If it's a redirect, it's not a redlink? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, I know that you and the IP have discussed this guideline before, and that the IP contacted you to weigh in on this latest matter. It seems that I don't fully share your and the IP's views of the WP:Red link guideline. I've explained above and here at the Yaoi talk page how I feel about the guideline. You stated, "The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we should have, rather than based on what we predict will be created. Do you disagree with that?" Yes, I partly disagree with that. I stated when reverting the IP, "obscurity is one of the things to consider; WP:Notability is clear that notability does not guarantee an article." And I stated above, "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.' And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various WP:AfDs and the like." When removing red links, it is often the case that editors are predicting what will be created, and I don't see a problem with that if the editor is using common sense and is taking Wikipedia's notability guidelines into account. I do see a problem with editors simply adding red links because they want an article created, or are hoping some WP:Newbie, who has no idea how to appropriately apply Wikipedia's notability guidelines, will create it. Like I told the IP at the Yaoi talk page, we have more than one Wikipedia notability guideline, including Notability (events). WP:Secondary sources covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable or that it should have its own Wikipedia article.

As for what the WP:NOPAGE aspect that I added (and Wdchk tweaked) means, it means what Wdchk stated it means. And it was already noted in the guideline by the "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." part. I decided to make mention of it more explicit, especially since the IP had re-added the "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." piece. The IP's edit on that matter made it seem as though the subject should automatically be an article; I wanted to make it clear that the subject might be better served as content placed in an existing article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How do we define a red link's 'likelihood' of becoming an article, if not plainly by the subject's notability and verifiability? There are already many warnings in this guideline on when not to create red links. I think that the bar of 'unlikelihood' is being set too low with cautions about obscurity.  Dare I mention the other stuff on Wikipedia?  A great deal of notable, verifiable, subjects are 'obscure' to someone, but are still very valid, encyclopedic topics. I also think that the concern that there are fewer hands for the work (Not brought up here, but a common media story about Wikipedia these days) is causing people to remove red links - 'what's the likelihood that someone would be interested in making an article on that topic?'.
 * If stubs are created (which isn't too likely these days, given my experience with the stringency of the articles for creation process... - my drafts typically get assessed as C-class on their entry into mainspace), then the editing process will find them eventually expanded into something half-decent or redirected to an article section or deleted. I sincerely doubt that there have ever been higher barriers to newbies creating stub articles on Wikipedia. (I am making a very bold claim here, because I would love to be proven wrong.)
 * I think there needs to be more said on how 'likelihood' is determined in this guideline, because in my experience, red links on subjects which are notable and verifiable are being removed - resulting in articles being orphaned from the start, and potentially not having people who would be interested in the topic (reading a related article) seeing the red link in that article's page and being enticed to create the article, or assist in drafting an article. I hope this helps clarify my concerns about how the 'likelihood' of a red link becoming an article is assessed, and helps move the discussion on. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer, I've changed the guideline page to read "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the redlink could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." If I am understanding you correctly, this gives across the broad thrust of your claim. If that's all you are aiming to say, here, then I agree- if that's all you mean by saying that we shouldn't link to things just because they might be able to support an article, then we're on the same page. If that's not what you're saying, and you genuinely believe that we should be removing redlinks because they link to "obscure" topics which, though notable, verifiable and encyclopedic (etc.), are not something you think anyone will be bothered writing about, then I'm glad to say that your view is not currently reflected in the guideline. (Again, I'm not trying to be ignorant here, but I am having some difficulty in following what's being said...) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've no opinion on the anime article or any link therein. I'm here because of my interest in the guideline- no other reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this edit you made regarding the likelihood matter, since what warrants a Wikipedia article is a case-by-case matter (like I stated above, multiple WP:Secondary sources do not mean that the topic warrants a Wikipedia article), and I'm fine with this edit you made regarding the WP:NOPAGE guideline. As for removing a red link because it links to an obscure topic, yes, I (and many other editors) agree with that...if the removal is warranted; and I've seen many cases where the removal is warranted. I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that. I'm tired of seeing lousy WP:Stubs, WP:Redundant forks, and other pages that should not be Wikipedia articles just because editors don't understand how WP:Notability works and that Wikipedia has more than one notability guideline, or because they are hoping that a WP:Newbie (who, again, doesn't understand our notability guidelines) will do the work for them.


 * And, yes, IP, many WP:Stubs are still created. And many of them never expand enough to be a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Josh Milburn, going back to this edit you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason it was unclear to me (and I admit that this may be my problem, rather than yours) is that when someone talks about removing a redlink, I imagine there being no link, and that's certainly what the first part of the sentence was about. You were talking about replacing a redlink with a blue link- admittedly, this does involve the removal of the redlink. Concerning "I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that." - yes, of course, I oppose red links to topics which "don't deserve" an article, but I don't think "obscurity" has anything to do with that. Wikipedia does and should cover a very wide array of deeply obscure topics. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that Wikipedia should cover obscure topics. But, again, what I stated above about obscurity is that "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.'" By that, I mean that when it is an obscure topic, it's often the case that it's either not WP:Notable or it cannot be expanded beyond a WP:Stub and would be better served as a piece to an already-existing article. Wikipedia already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Wikipedia is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer, have you seen many cases where the removal of the red link is unwarranted, too? In my experience, if a stub is created, it can't be created by a newbie, because the AFC process is such that it selects against casual article-making. Having to wait for a month before someone even looks at your page is very discouraging unless you have a firm belief in the notability and verifiability of the topic and the quality of your writing.  I'm tired of having to fight for red links to notable, verifiable, encyclopedic topics.  Newbies and people who edit without signing up are capable of reading the notability guidelines, just like anyone else is, and the AFC process funnels people towards the relevant guidelines for making an article.  Are you certain that those stubs you see will never ever expand enough to be a worthwhile Wikipedia article?  What do you consider to be a worthwhile article?  The worst thing that you've said about red links is that they encourage stubs.  Even if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing?  Those red links might be on valid topics that could add context to the first article.  Good red links help Wikipedia grow, and remind us that Wikipedia will never be finished.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, you stated it yourself above -- Wikipedia is not as active as it used to be. I've been editing this site since 2007; and back then, WP:Stubs were expanded much more often. But even then, a good number of them should not have become articles. And a good number of them are still WP:Stubs. Some of them only have a few WP:Reliable sources to support them, as if that means that they should be Wikipedia articles. Yes, I generally do not see WP:Stubs as a good thing. WP:Stub even currently states, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I cannot help it that I generally don't see "article[s] deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" as good things. And I've been clear above that "Wikipedia already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Wikipedia is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks." So I don't know what else to state to you on this topic. You asked, "if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing?" If you can't see why I see that as "[an] overwhelmingly [...] negative thing," given what I stated above, then I really do not see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already stated why I don't regard Wikipedia being less active as being a valid consideration for the removal of red links. Wikipedia will never be complete, it will always be a work in progress. Removing red links and arguing that stubs aren't found and expanded is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Removing red links leads to articles being orphaned from their (arguably delayed) inception and being unfindable (which would eventually lead to redundant forks).  Being orphaned contributes to stubs remaining so for longer - because they're not well-linked and are harder to search for, potentially interested and knowledgeable people don't find and read the stub, and don't fix it.
 * I'm not sure where to go from here. What makes a red link likely to become a worthwhile article?  (Beyond the manpower factor.)  Can we please clarify this in the guideline? As it is, red links to valid topics are being removed for reasons which do not consider the topic's notability or verifiability, which contributes to the orphaning and delayed growth of stub articles.  This guideline does not define the question of 'likelihood' in a clear way.  This lack of definition means that a common understanding is difficult to reach - as I think we've been demonstrating. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And I never stated that Wikipedia being less active is a valid consideration for the removal of red links. I've been very clear on what I mean, and I stand by it. You disagree, and I won't be agreeing with you. Furthermore, sources claiming that Wikipedia is less active than it used to be are quite clear that it is still very active, and they acknowledge reasons why it's less active -- such as the fact that Wikipedia already covers pretty everything there is to cover. In other words, they make it very clear that Wikipedia does not need to do much more growing. And that goes back to the points I've made about useless or silly WP:Stubs and WP:Redundant forks. Your fondness for red links will never be a view that I share. I was not speaking of WP:Orphans. Anyone wanting to know what I mean by "worthwhile" can Google the term. I am not speaking from a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale on this matter, but from several years of experience editing this site. I doubt that you are anywhere close to being a WP:Newbie, so your experience with red link matters is different than mine for some other reason. And as for "likelihood," J Milburn already changed the wording to wording that you no doubt support. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we go back to, please? It doesn't look like anything I was trying to say. That whole sentence is about "Do not remove red links unless ...". "Remove" as in "delete the double brackets". (Sure, we hope and expect that someone real soon will create a page for that term to turn the red link blue. However deciding whether the new page is an article or a redirect to a section is an entirely separate matter. What we are talking about in this part of the guideline is, right now, should the red link be there or not.) The text now reads, "Do not remove red links unless ... the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section ...". Sorry, but that is going to be misunderstood. Remove the red link and replace it with a link to a section ... when? I know we're having trouble finding the right words, but the process we're trying to describe is not complicated: (1) is the redlinked term notable? If yes, leave the red link in; if no, you can remove it. (2) Separate decision, no need to make this decision immediately – do we write about the notable term in its own article or in a section of another article about a broader topic? If a section, we create a redirect from the notable term to that section. But maybe we are over-complicating by trying to go into unnecessary detail about part (2) of the process. Here's an attempt to separate things out into a simpler explanation; what does everyone think?
 * "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. (Sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic – see WP:NOPAGE). Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability." – Wdchk (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as you can see in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated to Josh Milburn, "[G]oing back to this edit you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link." As for your proposal, Wdchk, I'd rather that the "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses. What do you think of wording the text as "or if the red link could be turned into a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)."?


 * On a side note: No need to WP:Ping me to this page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wdchk, I prefer your alternative wording here to the previous wording. I think "inclusion" would be better than "notability", as notability isn't necessarily the only relevant concern. I am opposed to Flyer's suggestion- creating a monster sentence with lots of conjunctions is not helpful; it's obfuscatory. How about "A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, it may sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." I doubt this is perfect. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, it may sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." – Wdchk (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is the same as your wording, except I changed "could be replaced with a link" to "could be turned into a link." I changed it per what I stated in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post, and your response to that. The current WP:NOPAGE wording is a mix of all three of our efforts. But I can be fine with either your or Wdchk's latest proposals (I already mentioned above that I prefer Wdchk's "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses). Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies- I have no preference between "turned into" or "replaced", but perhaps we could clarify that we mean "blue link". After all, a red link is still a link. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting we leave out the part about "red link could be turned into / replaced with a blue link to a section" because that seemed to be a point at which we started to get confusing (see my previous comment 04:08, 3 May 2015). My reasoning is that someone who wants more info about linking to sections can go read about it at WP:NOPAGE. To avoid tying ourselves in knots, since this is the red link guideline I'm suggesting we focus mainly on why we would leave or remove a red link. I'm intentionally cutting out the explanation about converting red links to blue links because really that's a different topic (when do you create an article vs. when do you link to a section vs. when do you create a redirect, etc. – all those things documented elsewhere). I'm actually good with J Milburn's version of 07:59, 3 May 2015, with a minor copyedit:

In a situation where one person adds red links to a subject because they think it is notable, verifiable, and probably should have its own article, and someone else removes it because they think it falls under WP:NOPAGE (as in yaoi recently), does the current wording of the guideline provide enough guidance to allow such a dispute to be worked out? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not explicitly remove your links at the Yaoi article because of WP:NOPAGE; if I felt that your links covered WP:Notable topics, I would not have asked you to provide proof of the matter. After you provided sources, what you consider proof, I still doubted that the topics should be standalone articles; I still do. I'm not convinced that your red links in that case are WP:Notable. That's why I explicitly stated that multiple WP:Reliable sources noting a topic does not automatically mean that a topic is WP:Notable, and then I attempted to explain what I meant (all of this is documented at the Yaoi talk page).


 * I think that the latest wording that J Milburn and Wdchk suggested above is clear enough. And if it's not as clear as it can be and needs more detail, that should be addressed lower on the page instead of in the introduction. I'm also not sure that this edit you made is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I made that edit because all the other WP: style abbreviations on the page are explained or hidden behind a plain English explanation of what they are.  I changed the BLP one for the same reason.  Having the plain English there makes it clearer as to why someone should read that link, and will hopefully result in more click-throughs.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again- navboxes
Per the addition of a "no redlinks in navboxes" comment in this article flies in the face of reality and, more to the point, is being used as a bludgeon in a more targeted discussion at the navboxes article. The issue in editing these guidelines is clear: "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article... Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Nowhere is this more important than in navboxes, to flag editors about what articles have yet to be written that are relevant to a topic. We have on editor who seems to have an obsession about removing redlinks from navboxes based on a random set of rules, often with little understanding of why redlinks are in given articles - while wikipedia has many articles, it truly is not finished and redlinks help encourage people to create articles. Thus, this one-man crusade needs to end. Montanabw (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an addition. It is a long-standing part of the guideline (I can see it at least as far back as 2010) that was removed without prior discussion on 29 April.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Redlinks have long been discouraged in navboxes, both by this guideline and by actual practice. The removal of that clause, not its addition, is what didn't have consensus. The proposal below indicates (so far) no consensus to remove it either. While there are number of support !votes to do so, they're matched by opposes. I'll leave it to the closer to determine which are better reasoned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very generous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)