Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Does it seem like red links are discouraged more than they used to be?

It seems like users are more commonly removing red links than they used to. Moumar (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I very much hope so. Maybe it's the parts of Wikipedia I most frequent, but I usually find them for topics that couldn't merit an article. They could often be replaced more fruitfully by a one-sentence explanation or a good citation. And they're ugly and distracting to read. Blythwood (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If people are removing legitimate redlinks, they should be reverted. I agree entirely that, for some reason, certain corners of the Wikipedia community have turned on redlinks. This is a bad thing. I doubt that this is because the majority of redlinks are now illegitimate. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been going the opposite way—the more I've figured out how to track down sources, there more I've learned just how many potential articles there are out there and am quicker to add redlinks. {{illm}} is a tool I've fallen in love with and which has led to the creation of quite a few articles. The onus should be on redlink deleters to show a redlink is unviable—if they can't, just revert the damage. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is of course your opinion, not the consensus on Wikipedia, otherwise the essay WP:WTAF would be deleted. The onus should be on an individual adding material, as is the consensus on Wikipedia. Hardly "damage" either way. It seems like users are removing more red links because there are more articles, and thus less viable topics. That's not to say that any red link is not a viable topic, or that all the good articles have already been written, but the ratio between the two is probably very different than it was 10 years ago. - Aoidh (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus for WP:WTAF, which is nothing more than an essay whose advice can safely be disregarded. It's not my opinion that redlinks lead to large numbers of new articles. In September alone redlinks have led me to create William Alexander Foster, George Ham, To the Heart of the Storm, The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Dit name, George-Paschal Desbarats, and Albert E. S. Smythe, and if I had more time I'd create a whole lot more. Nobody outside the choir cares about any "statistics" you've pulled out of your sleeve, and editors have every right to restore redlinks that have been removed to satisfy an anti-redlink ideology. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Nor did I say there was such a consensus, what I said was that essay highlights the fact that what you said is your opinion, not the community consensus. Nobody cares about the articles you're linking to, they serve a similar purpose yet you dismiss what I said and make a similar claim in the same comment. It works both ways; editors have every right to remove redlinks that serve no purpose, and if an editor is going to edit-war to keep them, they must show why they belong. - Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"Nobody cares about" article creation on Wikipedia? That's quite the claim. If an editor is going to "remove redlinks that serve no purpose" they'd better be prepared to show they serve no purpose, especially if they're going to start an edit war over it. Here's a better idea: don't be disruptive; leave the redlinks alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem with taking quotes out of context is that the meaning is usually distorted. I however, agree with your claim that editors should not be disruptive. If there is a disagreement about redlinks, discuss it on the article's talk page, don't edit war to remove or restore them, but that goes both ways. - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I quoted nothing out of context—I just reworded what you said in a way you'd rather not be made explicit. Removing redlinks for being redlinks is disruptive. Talk page consensus is not required to keep them, but to remove them, as the consensus at Wikipedia is that redlinks are good things that promote legitimate content creation. If you'd like to overturn that consensus, start yourself an RfC. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Aoidh, could you be clearer on what's "just" Curly's opinion (man)? There's a pretty clear consensus (even if there remain a few ardent nay-sayers) that redlinks to viable articles should remain; this is reflected in the guideline. Or do you believe that redlink removal should not be a part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle? With a few exceptions (NFC spring to mind, as do certain BLP-related issues) the onus is always on the person making the change- if that's someone removing a redlink, then the onus is on that person to provide something resembling a coherent argument for that removal. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, "just revert the damage". First, removing redlinks is not "damage" unless shown to be through discussion. Second, "just reverting" is not part of BRD. Third, calling someone else's edit "damage" is a battleground mentality that causes more issues than it solves, even when it is clearly and unambiguously truly damage such as vandalism, such tone does not help; content disputes are not vandalism. Discussion is not limited to one party; when there is a dispute, the onus is on both parties. I agree that someone removing something from an article should show justification for it, but the reverse it also true in that if a redlink is added and that edit is challenged, it needs to be justified why the redlink belongs. Telling someone to "just revert the damage" is going to get that person blocked for edit warring and does nothing to resolve an issue. That is what I was referring to when I said that that was just his opinion, and not a consensus, since actual consensus on Wikipedia (by way of WP:EW) is "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable", which utterly contradicts the claim that one should "just revert the damage". - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
content disputes are not vandalism: it's not a content dispute when a redlink is removed for being a redlink. It becomes one only when editors have a legitimate disagreement over the validity of the redlink—which it couldn't possibly be when one party removes it without putting any effort into finding out if it may be valid. The consensus is that redlinks are desirable on Wikipedia, and the onus is on the removers to justify removal. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"A redlink to a person's name should be avoided"—or should 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. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name."
This seems unreasonably broad.
  • "particularly when the name is used in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual": how does this apply to redlinks? Will the individual's reputation be "saved" if the link is blue (or black?)
  • "and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name": and frequently people link to an article that is already a bluelink, either unknowingly or because they actually thought the linked-to article was about the person in the text.
I had a bunch of redlinks in John Wilson Bengough that I've slowly been creating articles for. I can't see what damage could be done by either context or accidental mis-linking in any of those cases (George Ham, William Briggs (publisher), Albert E. S. Smythe, William Alexander Foster). If a redlink can be demonstrated to be somehow "damaging", then that redlink should of course be removed—but not under the grounds that it's "a redlink to a person's name". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example using a fictional situation: Let's say that John Smith is mentioned in an article about the murder of his wife, Jane Smith. John was never considered notable, but someone red links the name in the murder article since he is convicted of murdering his wife. Nobody ever creates his article. Now, a few years later, a different person named John Smith runs for public office and succeeds in getting elected, and someone dutifully creates a John Smith article. In the rarely viewed Murder of Jane Smith article, the red link to her murdering husband turns into a blue link, and if anyone ever pays attention to it, they will plainly see that Wikipedia is saying that politician John Smith was convicted of murdering his wife Jane. Not a good thing to have happen. Even very uncommon names can be shared, so if there is no link, and you are not going to write the article yourself, it's best not to redlink names. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said above, that has nothing to do with redlinks—the situation would be identical if the John Smith article existed before it was linked to. Or if, say, someone created the John Smith article for the murderer, and then the politician rose to prominence and thus was moved to the unambiguated John Smith article under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the murderer moved to "John Smith (murderer)"). The problem is not redlinks. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" wording has been discussed before, and there was agreement that neither version for the wording is good wording; see Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 3#Personal names. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about wording, I'm talking the very ideas underlying the guideline, and that discussion answer the issues I brought up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the above analogy, the difference is that if the article already exists for John Smith the murderer, then it will likely be renamed from a plain John Smith to John Smith (murderer) and the new John Smith or John Smith (politician) article can be added as appropriate. The process for renaming the article has a specific step for checking and fixing any links that go to the old name. The problem with red linking a living person is that when someone creates the new page, the link will automatically connect, and nobody will be the wiser, and we will be publishing incorrect info about a living person. In my hypothetical example above, it might be obvious that something is amiss, but imagine two scientists with the same name, but different disciplines: As soon as someone writes about one of them, the redlinks referring to either one will connect, and some people will be confused or start changing info to match their version of John Smith, scientist. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That assumes someone actually does the "what links here" work, which is not automated or enforced and not likely widespread. Bluelinks to the wrong person are abundant as it is—and when a redlink becomes a bluelink, it becomes no more than another mistaken bluelink like all the others. That's hardly grounds for doing without redlinks to people (particularly dead people, who are most of them). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If you think it should be changed, by all means, start a formal RfC and see if it flies. I don't think it will, but you never know. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
How about when an editor like me establishes red links to dead persons names, intending to go back and create articles about them and to encourage others to do so as well. Then along comes another editor who deletes all the red links and claims the whole thing was "hagiography."! I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy on "hagiography", but I have seen quite a few editors calling "hagiography" to support deleting red links or dead people's names altogether. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I just recently came across a list of artists in the Kanō school article, several of which have been redlinked for years. I grabbed a couple books from the library and turned two of them blue (Kanō Einō and Kanō Kazunobu‎‎), and when I find the time I'll start the rest (I have the sources). Whatever motivation was behind this prohibition, it couldn't possibly apply to that list. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RED is no longer a shortcut

WP:RED is no longer a shortcut. --Diwas (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

that redirect was vandalized and has been restored. --Lockley (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blue links to non-existent pages

Links to non-existent pages appear blue in three cases: default system messages in the MediaWiki namespace, files on Commons, and global user pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about using red links in tournament articles (in WP:RED)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maintenance

Finding a consensus to use red links in tournament articles, may be specific in WP:NOTRED.

Participants
Decider

The decider of the consensus will be User:Bbb23, in which he/she is one of the admins in this Wikipedia.

Support

Examples:

Oppose

Examples:

Netural
Comment
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When an article is deleted for reasons other than non-notability

I have come across many red link topics that deserve articles, or to be redirects to existing articles, but they have had previous articles that were deleted for reasons other than non-notability or being un-encyclopedic in another way. Typically, the deleted articles were vandalism or unsalvageable, such as an article that consists entirely of copyrighted material used without permission. I felt that such cases should be mentioned on this page. I fully welcome any changes to my changes that other editors might feel are appropriate. If you think my change should be reverted, I will listen to your reasoning. If you want to talk to me for any reason, please alert me on my user talk page. Thanks, Kjkolb (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Red link up for deletion

Template:Red link has been proposed for deletion. You're welcome to comment in the discussion. Uanfala (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Redlinking an unsuitable term when intending to write about a different topic

I don't understand this. Surely, if the target of the redlink is an article about a different subject that just happens to share the same name, then the redlink is irrelevant and shouldn't be there in the first place? Otherwise, the redlink will then point to an unsuitable article when it is created, surprising the reader by taking them to an article that is not relevant to the link that they have just clicked. If I am missing the mark, does anyone have any examples that can help clarify? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Before that, it talks about "Red links should not be made to deleted articles...". The above quoted text is saying that despite that advice, it is ok to make a red link that happens to point to a deleted article, if the intention is that the red link refers to something else that meets the other points mentioned. The new red link would probably be in an article where the red link has never been used—it is not suggesting that an existing link to a deleted article should be made into a link to an unrelated topic. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I've reworded it slightly to clarify that the start of the sentence refers to the deleted article, not the intended link that coincidentally happens to point to it. Thank you for clearing that up for me. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page

I can't create the page I want to.As there are no sources clues so they can lead me. Zohaaa.16 (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You could start with WP:CREATE. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes Nipun Pramodya (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

appropriate use of red link?

is the red link at the top of this page Richard Goddard (rugby league), appropriate? LibStar (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No they were not appropriate, There was no indication either one of those people were nootable. The only place they linked to was the hatnote in that article. ~ GB fan 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello there. There was only the one person there, but there would be (I'm guessing) that one would be redirects. The player in question played for Hull and Gloucester, so notability would be inherent with RUN and RLN and it would be very conceivable that someone may wish to create the article, and could be done from this. I'm happy to be wrong, but I couldn't see anything cast-iron in the main page that demanded the removal of red-links.Fleets (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That was a very badly written hatnote then as there were two distinct articles linked to, Richard Goddard (rugby) and Dicky Goddard, in two separate sentences. There would be no reason to think that the two were the same person. There isn't anything that demands removal of the hatnote. There also isn't anything that demands the hatnote exists. So we need to evaluate it based on its usefulness. There was nothing to help anyone figure out who this was talking about. Both links only led back to that hatnote. It wasn't useful. ~ GB fan 10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what I said is not correct there is a portion of this guideline that says the hatnote should not be there. Look at the Dealing with existing red links section. The second from the bottom bullet says: "Links in any of the various {{About}} ... notes, ... are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed." ~ GB fan 10:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
And while I was writing this, it has been fixed and the article written. ~ GB fan 10:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
End result is a positive one, with a well written article now in place, so I'm both lucid and elucidated.Fleets (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Redlinkable Pages

While most of the Pages/Articles doesn't have redlinks, does any of Pages/Articles deserve their redlinks stay? Articles i currently edited for redlinks are Social Point, Take-Two Interactive, Cinema of China and Durian. I'll ignore purging redlinks of Articles/Pages being mentioned. Kurt Rencel (Zirukurt01)✉ 13:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal names redux

To revisit this discussion, I made this edit because someone referenced that sentence as an excuse to remove red links for persons, period. This rationale directly contradicts the third paragraph in WP:REDYES which mentions WP:BIO. In my opinion, removing "particularly" and the comma resolves this matter to focus only on the context that follows. Pinging Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), DGG, Ground Zero, Flyer22 Reborn, and Aoidh for feedback. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit seems fine to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
After re-visiting the guideline of WP:REDNOT, I noticed that the wording had been altered/removed, and thus I came across this discussion. I was the editor mentioned in the first post of this discussion, with this edit of mine at Dunkirk (2017 film), which was reverted with this edit by Erik. It seems that the edit to REDNOT has been executed based on their dislike for the wording, after the editor has partaken in a serious edit-war at "Dunkirk (2017 film)", concerning the removal of redlinks (their list of edits/reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I recommend that the edits to REDNOT and "Dunkirk (2017 film)" be reverted and a proper discussion started concerning the validity of the edit to REDNOT; if both do not happen, then I recommend and would be more than happy to open an RFC to gain the thoughts of the editing community. Cheers. -- AlexTW 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed previously. WP:REDNOT exists for WP:BLP-reasons. It doesn't exactly "contradict" WP:REDYES. WP:REDYES doesn't apply to personal names, per WP:REDNOT. As WP:REDNOT says not to red-link personal names, a personal name is not WP:REDYES-compliant with which to begin. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:REDYES says, "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain that the red link is a valid title of a page, and that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." It tells me that when I create a red link for a person, I need to make sure that it will be a valid article title for the person and that it will likely be a notable person. How does WP:REDNOT not contradict that? Joefromrandb. If this is real, then we need to state it more upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Going deeper in the archives (I only went back to Archive 3), I see a lot of back-and-forth about the purpose of using it, but I don't see a solid consensus. Was there an RfC on this matter? Not being able to add red links for persons at all seems to contradict the key goal of the guideline, to help Wikipedia grow. I can see where it can be problematic, but where I was attempting to keep red links at Dunkirk (2017 film) for unequivocally billed actors. I created an article for one person as a result and find it likely that articles can be created for other persons. I find it completely bizarre that this is not allowed at all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not tell you that at all. You're making that up. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Joefromrandb, so you're saying red links can be added for persons? Because I was recently reverted with that passage being cited in unconditionally removing red links for persons. If it is conditional, then we need to be clear about that, otherwise this guideline is being abused. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Red links are not to be created for people, full stop. This is due to WP:BLP-concerns, and has been discussed at length in the past. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's exactly what I said. I did not make anything up. So why is it okay to have the third paragraph in WP:REDYES mention persons and looking at WP:BIO? We should remove that because that is what I saw as justification for adding red links. If we are not allowed to add red links for persons, we should not mention persons and WP:BIO at all in WP:REDYES. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I create red links for people all the time, via {{ill}}. Even this list accepts them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, me too! That's why I am confounded here. I can understand conditions for red links for persons based on concerns like BLP, but I have long been under the assumption that such red links are okay. The fact that it is not highlighted needs to be addressed, or otherwise excised, based on consensus, from this guideline. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, I appreciate the consistency here. Would you also agree with updating the nutshell to mention this? Articles on persons make up a fair portion of Wikipedia, and the caveat is unnecessarily buried in the body. Also, can you point to the key discussion(s) that determined consensus for banning red links for persons? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense to argue for no red links for people with the BLP argument when it concerns dead people. "No red links for people, period" seems needlessly restrictive. I didn't discuss that yet and would argue against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been reading the archives related to this matter (search for person, people, bio, BLP). There have been some interesting discussions in the past, but I am not sure which one solidified this particular rule. I'm considering an RfC but want to find out if there was a previous RfC (or a discussion amounting to one) first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion seems pointless to me because there are already gazillions of red links to persons, dead and alive. The categorical statement, "Red links are not to be created for people, full stop." is not supported by the guideline overleaf which says: "A red link 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." In most situations – cast lists of films and operas, authors of publications, sports people – those concerns don't arise. Even the anecdote about Tom Mueller mentioned overleaf doesn't demonstrate the reason for such a rigid prohibition; it was a mistake which the author of Tom Mueller should have corrected when they created that article. Then there are the dozens of lists with thousands of red links to persons at WP:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles; these are used productively to close gaps in Wikipdia and it discusses explicitly how to deal with red-linked persons. REDYES and REDNOT explain the advantages and pitfalls of both approaches; how they are applied in specific articles is up to editors and their consensus in the evaluation of those in each case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed "particularly" from the sentence you quoted, but I was reverted because the other editor believed in the totality of banning red links for persons. (Which makes the rest of the sentence useless.) I think the guideline needs to be updated to have clear language in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

link to Like this one

should the link be changed to something like the following: Like this one  ? the reason I’m asking is because it may reduce the chance of the link going blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The garmine (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The link currently points to Like this one, a title that is protected against creation. Your suggested target 12therinklt is not, so it would be much easier for it to turn blue. – Uanfala (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. The garmine (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But it might be the name of a film, album or band in the near future. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Red User Name !

My user name (C.Cleeve) has always been RED and it's been suggested that I should change it to the normal colour. I'm now rather old (in 80s) and don't know how to do it. I would be pleased if someone would let me know how to do it or can do it for me. Regards C.Cleeve (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Cleeve: Your username is showing up in red because you don't have any content on your user page. It's not a requirement to have content there, but it's a place for you to give other editors some idea of who you are, if you're so inclined. Mine's rather minimalist, but you're welcome to take a look at it if you'd like. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@C.Cleeve: Please note that there is nothing wrong with having your username in red. Several editors have theirs in red. Some of them like it because it makes it easier to find their names on watchlists and edit histories. If you find that you do want to change it to blue then Doniago has given you the correct info to make happen. MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your help and advice. It worked see! C.Cleeve (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links for persons

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to allow red links for persons. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Should red links for persons be allowed on Wikipedia? If no, why not? If yes, what conditions, if any, should be considered? WP:REDNOT's fourth paragraph says, "A red link to a person's name should be avoided," but WP:REDLINK's nutshell template and lead section, as well as WP:LINK#Red links, do not mention this exception. While there have been past discussions, differing interpretations (e.g., the exception being conditional or unconditional) warrant a formal determination. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Allow redlinks This does not "warrant a formal determination"; I prefer to leave the current wording status quo ante so application can differ page to page. Please handle your dispute on the page in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks I also prefer the less restrictive ambiguity expressed above. Many situations where a red link occurs is as a place holder for a notable subject (in this case, people), which will be an arguable situation. The red link in an appropriate situation serves as an invitation for an article to be created, possibly by someone with the appropriate knowledge. It then automatically links to the correct spelling, disambiguation format etc etc in potentially multiple appropriate articles. Trackinfo (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow redlinks If the person is not notable, a redlink is misleading as it implies that an article should be created. If a person is notable, creating a stub article takes almost no effort, and it ensures that an article about a different person isn't created under that name potentially creating BLP issues (as described at WP:REDNOT). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow redlinks As Ahecht states above, if a person is notable a page can be created easily enough. The redlink in a page for a notable person is likely to open up Pandora's box/POV forks for the often fierce debates about whether a person is notable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see how this isn't applicable to all red links, so I take these comments with a grain of salt. Stubs, regardless of their actual notability, are deleted on "undemonstrated" notability grounds all the time. The point of this guideline is to encourage articles where they should be created but someone is unwilling to do the basic (and good work) of finding and subsequently using reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow red links. Perhaps there should be a soft suggestion to "avoid" them while also a second suggestion to "pre-emptively disambiguate these red links", but certainly there shouldn't be either a blanket ban nor a strong "thou should not use these". The "pre-emptive disambiguate" can avoid the issue of murderers crossing streams with politicians. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow redlinks - In times past when wikipedia was small, indeed redlinks as an invitation was a good idea, because there was so many articles missing. Now other issues come into play. In particular, I agree that for a deserving person the article will be created anyway, whereas redlinked nonnotables is a headache. One might say let's allow redlinks for notables, but then we run into notability quarrels about redlinks which actually better be handled at AfDs rather than about hypothetical possibilities. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks While redlinks should generally be avoided, there are many pages where a redlink remains an invitation to create an article. This is especially true with lists of people who may be notable (based on a SNG), but have not seen an article correctly. In some lists, the recommendation is to only list those members who are notable, so the redlink can be a bridge. (A specific example are the lists of members of a legislative assembly, where some, but not all, members have pages, but others do not). --Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The example above is for me a reason to support disallow. Per WP:NPOL not all legislative assembly members of all kinds of assemblies automatically qualify. That, in a given list, some have a page may be due to these people meeting general notability rather than this specific notability guideline. Allowing to redlink the non-notable member of such an assembly would in my view raise exactly the problems I warned about before. Arnoutf (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite understand this. What kind of legislative assembly members are not covered by NPOL? They would have to be sub-sub-national, and I don't know of many of those. Frickeg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is an example of a template, which, I believe, is an appropriate use of redlinks - Template:Oklahoma_State_Senators. The current community consensus is that all members of a sub-national legislature receive the presumption of notability. Within the Oklahoma State Senate, community members have only created articles about 16 of the 44 members. A redlink helps in the creation of articles and provides a way to connect articles together. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks in article prose, disallow in lists (including in-article lists). This seems to come closest to describing current practice. I am fully confident that WP:NPP can keep WP free of BLP articles that should not be part of the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. There are plenty of cases where someone is notable but an article is not yet created, and it is frankly better to encourage people to create an actual article rather than someone putting together a fairly useless stub. Redlinks are also one of the best ways of encouraging new editors to contribute - I know I was first prompted to create an article by encountering a redlink, and I strongly suspect I am not alone. Additionally, people above mention that creating a stub takes "almost no effort". Creating one stub might be fairly simple, but for some lists, where a SNG guarantees notability, it may be a matter of creating dozens or even hundreds of stubs. I do not see a problem here that needs addressing - if people are not notable they should not be linked at all, and if they are a redlink is encouraging article creation. Frickeg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. This is one of the most singly catastrophic proposals I've seen on this project: the marker that an article on a notable person needs creation is absolutely critical for content development, especially in any form of underrepresented area. If we wreck this because a couple of people don't like the look of redlinks, we may as well give up on expanding our content relating to people and go home. We know from long experience that they are not just "created anyway" - this proposal would directly and actively discourage the creation of articles on unequivocally notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks: The stupidest proposal I've seen in a while, quite frankly. We don't need to go overboard with them, sure (if someone's obviously NN, having a redlink is pointless), but to ban them misses the forest for the trees, to be nice. Wizardman 23:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. The problem described (that they may refer to multiple people by the same name and that a newly created article may end up having bad incoming links) is better fixed by, when you create a new article, checking the incoming links to make sure they're not bad. Doesn't everyone already do that? Maybe checking this should be part of NPP. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. Wizardman (talk · contribs) and The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) say it quite well. Furthermore, having redlinked names makes it far, far easier to integrate new articles into the encyclopedia once they have been created. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks This is a foundational piece of WP. It identifies that a subject does not have an article, and encourages editors to create it. Not every redlink is going to be notable when properly examined, but that is in the nature of WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks Unless and until the page Wikipedia shows when a reader clicks on a redlink for "John Smith" is changed to invite the reader to search Google for people named "John Smith"—in which case a redlink for a person would create a potential BLP problem—I don't see what the problem is. Why would we treat redlinks for people differently than we do redlinks for any other subject? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow redlinks For the same reasons as given above; I've nothing to add to them. -- AlexTW 03:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks for all the reasons given above but also to highlight the need to write articles about notable people who already have biographies in other language versions of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks (a) where the person linked may plausibly be the subject of a future article within a reasonable time; (b) where there's more than one article linking to that person (see MOS:DABRED). Remove single red links to persons with no prospect of notability. — Stanning (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks When one is creating an article, typically one comes across multiple other persons who are indeed also notable. Not only do redlinks allow for interconnections and integration within the encyclopedia they provide context for the person and associates being written about. It is absolutely a time sink to have to search for each person who might have been involved with a subject and link them when a new article is created. Far better to insert a redlink at the time of creation to other notables, so that when an article is written, links become active. As for the complaint that the redlink might point to the wrong person, if one styles the name properly when a redlink is created, that is unlikely to happen. I cannot speak for any one else, but when writing an article, I verify the names of others to see if they already have an article or not. If they do not, a quick Google search will advise what is the most likely title, the same way one would search to name any other article. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks per @SusunW and Ipigott:. This has my strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks as an article creator, I often uncover multiple notable people during my writing. Adding redlinks to these articles is an invitation to others to work on these notable people or it allows active links to exist immediately after I work on their articles. I agree wholeheartedly with SusunW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks per all of the reasons above. The existing guidelines for redlinks (essentially, can potentially become an article) are more than adequate. This is an article by article process. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks - The question seems to be whether there should be an exception to standard operating procedure for names of people. Honestly, I hadn't even come across this exception before. The objection that most people seem to have is an objection to redlinks in general, it seems. I wouldn't oppose tweaking the rules for all redlinks (not outright forbidding them, of course), but at this point I see no reason to treat names differently. Of course, guidelines like LISTPEOPLE/ALUMNI still apply -- there are many, many instances when a linked name should be supported by sources if there's no article. But that's besides the point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. The section WP:REDNOT has been very poorly thought out to the point of being irrational. How long has it been in this state? I came here to explain why redlinks can be positively beneficial when multiple people exist with the same name, only to find SusunW got here before me. Thincat (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. The WP:REDNOT 4th paragraph dates to a 2011 insertion. One lone individual decided to put that in, with a talk page notification that it had been done. There does not seem to have been a pre-insertion consensus. Perhaps it's time to use the consensus here to either remove that completely, or reword it conditionally. Whatever reason the editor had for inserting it, we are now 6 years beyond that. Redlinks on individual names are very helpful, especially in situations where projects are trying to improve coverage on a given demographic. The other thing is ... does anybody really believe that nobody, especially drive-by IPs, is inserting redlinks for persons? Is there some bot intended to make a massive regular sweep through Wikipedia to remove redlinks for persons? Projects depends on those redlinks. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks for persons as well as for any other subject. Remove the phrase A red link to a person's name should be avoided from WP:REDNO as it contradicts this. Perhaps replace it with something like Add red links to the name of a living person only with care, when it will not imply an unsourced negative conclusion, or be likely to lead to confusion if the article is created. But this blanket ban is simply unjustified. Nor does it follow actual practice. Red links can lead to creation of valid articles on people as on any other subject, and in most cases carry no implication contrary to WP:BLP or any othe p[olicy or guideline. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks, for all the good reasons above. Modify WP:LISTPEOPLE, and particularly {{Editnotice for lists of people}} (which takes a guideline and turns it into law), accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks. This strikes me as a particularly silly example of instruction creep and the examples cited as reasons why are unconvincing. I'd rather have less restrictive guidance and allow editors to use their judgement. That's why we have humans working on this project. I admit I'm here because someone reverted me citing that section of REDNOT and I was startled by its existence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disallow redlinks. I could see changing it to something like, "Persons should not be redlinked unless there is a reasonable expectation that the subject is independently notable..." But the problem is that is open to interpretation, and we'll have a bunch of IP editors that will go back to redlinking every name of every person who's ever appeared in even one episode of a TV series sometime, etc. At the least, the onus should be on the editor who adds the redlink to justify why a redlink should remain – otherwise this will be "open season" to create a "sea of red" in many articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It has been common practice for the entire history of the project to red link notable biographical subjects without articles, and yet we don't have a problem with IP editors redlinking every name of every person who's ever appeared in even one episode of a TV series sometime (at least without them uncontroversially being reverted). It goes without saying that - as for every other redlinked subject, in all the millions of redlinks (including biographical subjects) - it does need to be a notable subject. I find it really strange that some "disallow" voters are talking about this as if it's a hypothetical which might trigger off tsunamis of non-notable redlinks instead of...what is already done virtually everywhere on the project without serious issue (and certainly without any of these issues). The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Really? Try watching one of the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon TV series articles sometime, and you'll see how fast IP editors will start adding redlinks for subjects that are currently below the notability guidelines (i.e. child actors in the first roles), or who are even just non-notable guest actors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
        • And this happens because IPs, understandably, don't understand our notability standards, something which won't change regardless of this discussion. You're just as free to remove them now (because they're non-notable!) as you would be if redlinks were disallowed - and you wouldn't have the absolutely catastrophic damage to content development on nearly every other topic of coverage that would occur in that case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks Others have made the case eloquently. Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Allow redlinks for notable individuals. I can see the need to be careful around potential BLP issues, but that hardly seems to be a problem unique to the issue of redlinks. I see no compelling reason to have different guidelines for people than for any other topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This matter came up for me because Dunkirk (2017 film) had three actors among those billed that did not have Wikipedia articles, including the one playing the protagonist, Fionn Whitehead. Based on the goal of the red-link guideline, their names were red-linked since simple search engine tests showed secondary sources, especially for Whitehead. However, these were de-linked without WP:REDNOT being cited, so it seemed more for aesthetic reasons. I recently went ahead and created an article, but I was surprised to hear the claim that red links for persons were not permitted. Until very recently, WP:REDYES mentioned people and WP:BIO until it was removed. So before this removal, this passage and the WP:REDNOT passage seemed to conflict. It would help to establish how Wikipedia should approach red links for persons and to also ensure that the exception is indicated on a high level and not be tucked away. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman, this guideline was referenced to remove red links from Dunkirk in their entirety, despite search engine tests showing that articles can be created. This guideline's lack of clarity has led to potential abuse, and it needs to be clearer to all of us in what cases red links are permitted and what they are not. I suggest a more conditional section similar to WP:ELMAYBE where conditions for red-linking a person can be explained. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahecht, Arnoutf, isn't the so-called ease of creating a stub a reason not to have red links at all? And why should the BLP concern make for an unconditional ban? In the case of Fionn Whitehead, the argument seems to be that he should never have been red-linked even though there was ample coverage (which was eventually used by me) and no confusion with anyone else? I can understand applying conditions, but a complete ban seems unwarranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideally you are right. But that would assume saintly editors all around. There are simply a lot of editors out there looking for reasons and allies to create articles on "my daddy" who is the most notable person in the world (to me). That is why notability of persons and BLP are among the strictest policies we have. That is why so much discussion about notability of people is ongoing. Anything to support inclusion of non-notable persons would interfere with the way these debates are formed, and allowing redlinked people (even non notable) in articles would invite editors (including novice editors) to patch together a stub on these non-notable people. That would put even more pressure on editors tracking non-notable stubs. In short it is mainly for pragmatic reasons I support to disallow these links as allowing them would create many many more debates on notability of people. That is, in my view disallowing these red-links is the lesser of the two evils Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The ease of creating articles and the urge to turn a list of red links blue is at the core of what resulted in the massive User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. One editor created thousands of articles, which I thought was a positive step in the right direction. But his work was so sloppy, others disagreed. The net result was thousands of man hours spent reviewing his work and ultimately, irresponsibly, ~16,000 articles were deleted. From my sampling of the articles, the subjects were notable (many Olympic non-medalists and world class athletes) and the stubs were valid. Others disagreed. Now future editors will meet with a notice that the article has previously been deleted. How many will get scared off? We have taken an additional step to HINDER the creation of articles, turned thousands of blue links red all because one editor tried too hard to create these simple stubs you refer to.Trackinfo (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I must say, I'm noting not much discussion and a lot of WP:VOTING... -- AlexTW 04:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone arguing that this is a terrible proposal has outlined a vast range of reasons why this is. You stated "For the same reasons as given above; I've nothing to add to them" - the single most contentless vote in the entire discussion. Funny man. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. Just for you, us Aussies clearly have a sense of humour. -- AlexTW 04:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't see that there is much to discuss. I have been working on a collaborative GA this month in which there have been added redlinks and interlanguage links to other WP pages for ten other notables. As we are still working on the article, there may be more before we are done. The point is, five of those redlinks have now converted to C class articles and one of them is a start class article. It isn't remotely "easy" to create well-documented, comprehensive articles. Single lines stubs are not helpful in providing much information, and a Google search would supply that. On the other hand, a comprehensive article gives context. Far easier to integrate other notables into the encyclopedia from an "anchor" article, which has already evaluated during its creation which associates are likely to also be notable. I see no net gain at all from prohibiting redlinks and a lot of detrimental hindrance for creation and integration. SusunW (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Yes, there can be a problem when a red link turns blue when the "wrong" article is created - a redlink for an actor in a film cast list, an article created for a dead politician of the same name, etc. Rather than avoiding redlinks for personal names (as suggested at WP:REDNOT), let's look at a different approach - a bot or similar.
It would be useful if editors creating articles or redirects which are already red links got a talk page message on the lines of: "Thank you for creating the article Xxx. It has been linked to by what were previously red links in the articles listed below, helping readers to use the encyclopedia. [And that list would preferably distinguish those cases where the link was in a template, rather than an individual link in the article]. If any of these do not seem to be intended to link to this article, please amend the incoming links - for more info on how to do this please click "HELP". If you cannot resolve these yourself please click "HERE" to add this to a list of articles needing attention."
And then have a maintenance template and category for "Articles with possibly incorrect incoming links", which a species of WikiGnome will then delight in sorting out by disambiguating incoming links, or perhaps moving the new article to a disambiguated title, as appropriate. A page at "HELP" would give advice on how to do this for willing but inexperienced editors.
The idea being that a new or lazy editor could click "HERE" to mark the article as needing help from someone else, while other editors could skim the list, notice the links which were from unlikely subject areas, and go and fix them. It wouldn't catch every instance, but it would reduce the number of links to completely wrong people. PamD 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resulting edit

Please see this for the change made to the guideline as a result of the above RfC. I really have only removed one sentence and have placed the rest of the content outside WP:REDNOT. The new subsection "Linking persons" affirms the above consensus, and I kept most of the content after it to use as advice instead. The sentence about checking links, I put at the end of the "When to create red links" subsection as a final step. We can expand the advice about red links for persons as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik, regarding the edit you made, isn't it best to keep the "Frequently, a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name." wording?
I've seen this (what that sentence states) happen a lot, which is one of my issues with red links. I was unaware of the RfC above; I wasn't paying much attention to discussion on this page, but I think I would have voted against allowing red links, for precisely the reasons the page stated. I too often see red links used to indicate that an article should be created when it's the case that an article should not be created, but the guideline does note that red links should not be created for topics that are unlikely to sustain an article (mainly per WP:Notable concerns). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I removed it because it was used as a reason not to create a red link. We could reinsert and rewrite that to be more advisory language, perhaps? Like "keep in mind..."? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Erik, yeah, I didn't mean that it should be re-added as a reason not to create a red link; I'm simply stating that the sentence by itself, as separate from the text it used to be connected to, notes a valid matter. I would prefer that it is blended in with the "Linking persons" section you created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I made this, this and this change to the section. Are you okay with the changes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on red links in infoboxes

Regarding MOS:INFOBOX, there is an RfC about red links in infoboxes. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_5&oldid=1144384992"