Thank you! I have found that certain mass creation to populate certain feature list candidates have harmed the encyclopedia far more than they have helped, but I have never seen such a cogent summary of my thoughts on the issue. Red links need to exist! Circéus (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear! Mr. Milburn has written the op-ed I have been procrastinating about for years. Thank you, J Milburn! :) I routinely add redlinks in my content, and lament the widespread erythrophobia on ENWP. Happily, they are still more welcome on other wikis I'm active on. Ijon (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erythrophobia is more common in some projects (ca:), less in others (es:). I need red links to check progress on large projects. When they are replaced with plain black text, I'm lost. B25es (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing cogently about something which has been troubling me for a while. Well put! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great article Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, totally agree about the red-links.Luvlymish 12:44, 18 August 2014 (GMT)Luvlymish (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see red links getting some attention. Sadly, red link aversion can be even seen at FA; in fact I've seen numerous times submitters said they are refusing to add red links to avoid their article looking "incomplete"; worse - I've seen reviewers requesting removal of "too many ugly red links" and the FA director(s) treating this as a valid objection. IMHO the anti-red link movement is being significantly strengthen by the anti-red link customs at FA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree- that's terrible and a real problem. I've been told to remove red links in my articles while going through the GA processes, and one of my articles was hit with a lot of red link removal when it was running as TFA, despite the fact that people were quite happy with them at FAC. The best thing we can do is make quite clear on the appropriate user talk pages/nomination pages that this is not a valid objection, linking to our various guidelines on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or rely on someone to add those red links back to an article after the FA process has run its course. (Not that I would engage in such a blatant act of disruption if asked. Of course not.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to the chorus of agreement. It's especially pervasive in the arena of categories - I've noticed that people are much happier removing a redlinked category rather than coming up with some way of creating and/or filling it. But I've noticed fewer and fewer articles with redlinks of late. And yes, I will create one if I think it's warranted, no matter what it looks like on the page. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories add a whole other level of complexity- I didn't think about them while writing this piece! As the category trees are well-defined, when I encounter or add a red link category I'll either create it (that is, stick it in the appropriate parent categories) or remove/correct it if it is clearly inappropriate. Of course, I agree that an appropriate but red category is better than no category at all. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could feel more confident that red links are actually doing their job if they didn't so often stay for years in the upper parts of Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, thanks for your comment. As I explained, red links do have a purpose beyond encouraging articles to be created, though that is probably the main reason. There's an interesting question about why some red links are seemingly not leading to article creation (I don't have any answers right now, I'm afraid; possibly the links are coming in from templates widely used on not-highly-viewed articles or something), but the fact it doesn't work so well in some cases doesn't mean that it never works, and those articles, surely, would be even less likely to be created if there were no red links. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit like saying "I'd be more happy with Wikipedia if it didn't claim it was incomplete". MWA list simply shows that there's a lot to be written, and that some topics are not very popular.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, I totally agree that red links serve an important and necessary purpose. Invertzoo (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Josh's essay, but I really must thank you for the shocking introduction. That's pure journalism! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erythrophobes would be happy using the Mobile interface: no visible red links, their text is just rendered in black. I wonder why Mobile readers are thought to be such a different species? One of the many annoying aspects of the current Mobile interface. PamD 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brought a smile to my face. And made me think about the usefulness of redlinks. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see this - I've been muttering similar things less cogently for years :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically here to turn the red links blue. Not surprisingly I like them, I add them, and I tend to have a quiet word with those who remove them in disregard of the guideline. Well said. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this nice essay! Those who remove red links should be warned not to do so. J Milburn: Is there any tool to detect the removal of red links? If not, I think it should be added into Special:AbuseFilter. That's one of the main reasons why we are here, to turn red links into blue links. It's the red links that make our life more interesting: there is always something more to do. Someone should warn those buggers who delete red links, please. This essay should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikilink. — Ark25 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any tools, but I agree that those who remove appropriate red links should receive a swift reversion and a polite note. I'm inclined to think, though, that people who remove the odd red link are less of a problem than people who hang around review processes (I've encountered them at the GA process, Piotr talked about them at FAC, Circéus mentioned the situation at FLC) insisting that red links are a bad thing. People who do this normalise an aversion to red links, and newbies will follow them. Many people who do this are otherwise excellent writers with very good editing practices, which means that people are all the more likely to follow their lead! J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of good reasons to remove any individual redlink (not an appropriate topic for an article, overlinking, etc), though, so I'm not sure an edit filter would be suitable even if desired. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have the filter and then try to count how many are deleted for good reasons and how many should have not been deleted. — Ark25 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A thought. As a reviewer at GA/FAC I'll often ask for red links to be added. I suggest that others do the same when you are reviewing stuff. We should not only defend red links in our works, but demand that editors add them. On that note, perhaps we could use a variant of {{underlinked}} but with a focus on red links? Last thought: I am surprised we are all here in agreement; judging by comments posted here RED has a very strong consensus for it - where are all those "wrongdoers" who remove them? Why are they sitting quiet? Was JM's argument so powerful it silenced all the opposition? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also request that redlinks are added when I'm reviewing articles, if appropriate. I agree that this is an important step- in a big way, it's norms at FAC, FLC, GAC and the like which determine the norms for the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm also pleasantly surprised about the lack of opposition- it could be something to do with the demographics of Signpost readers? Just a guess. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear from down here also! José Luiztalk 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are an appalling idea, another form of tagging, and I think Milburn's campaign is grotesque. It's an in-your-face way of demanding other people do work that the tagger is either unwilling or unable to do themselves. I suppose we can now expect renewed vigour from tag aficionados. The perpetrators of red links should be required either to remove them within a set period or produce a least a stub for them if no one else does it for them. Otherwise, this graffiti creep is in danger of visually rotting articles to the point where no one wants to look at them at all. Arc25 asked above whether there is a tool to detect the removal of red links. More to the point, what is needed is a tool to detect the insertion of red links, and keep track of the perpetrators and how long the links remain red. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red links have existed far, far longer than tags- they've existed as long as blue links. As I said in my article, red links were considered a good thing for years and years. You claim that red links are an "an in-your-face way of demanding other people do work that the tagger is either unwilling or unable to do themselves"- perhaps you also believe that advocating creating articles that are not ready for a featured article nomination is "grotesque"? Because, of course, people who do this are creating work for others, who then have to come along and improve the article. Newbies who need help? Ban them- they just create work for others, because they're "unwilling or unable" to edit in some of the more technical areas. You may not have noticed, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project: it's not the job of any individual to do all the work, and identifying areas where further work may be needed is part of our job as editors. As far as I can tell, your entire argument against red links is that they're ugly- do you really think that your aesthetic objection to the colour red outweighs the advantages of red links? Do you really think that your aesthetic objection to the colour red means that we should ignore our guidelines on the topic, and label the ideas of those who actually want to follow the guideline "grotesque"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 August 2014
Why are you attributing this flight of your imagination to me? What's this peculiar stuff about not noticing Wikipedia is a collaborative project and wanting to ban newbies who need help? I rather like the colour red. The in-your-face and visually offensive nature of these links has nothing intrinsically to do with their colour. They become visually offensive because of what they represent. They are a distraction which interrupts the flow and interferes with the reader's focus, particularly when they are overused. They would be just as offensive no matter what colour was used. They have no value to our readership, who come here to read articles and not to edit them. Their only purpose is to prompt editors. But editors who are willing and capable of writing the missing articles don't need other people to tell them what they should write. I have never personally written an article because someone red linked it. Can you honestly say that you write articles because you see red links for them? Usually there are other options to adding red links. You can write a stub. Or often you can create a redirect to a subsection in some existing article. It may be that our editing experiences have been different. But if that is the case we should be able to discuss our differences instead of constructing straw men and pretending they belong to our opponent. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No straw men here. You're the one who said that red links are bad because the person who adds them asks "other people do work that [they are] either unwilling or unable to do themselves". I was just wondering what else should be decried for the same reason- newbies were an obvious answer. If you agree with me that it's a bad reason to oppose newbies, perhaps you should reconsider your suggestion that it's a good reason to oppose red links. To respond to a few of your other points- First, you accept that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I'm stumped as to why you're so opposed to a sign that something can be improved by someone who didn't create said sign. Second, you tell me that red links are "visually offensive because of what they represent". What do they represent that it so problematic? To me, red links represent the fact that Wikipedia is, and will permanently be, a work-in-progress- our logo does the same thing. Third, you tell me that the "only purpose [of red links] is to prompt editors", and I'm left wondering whether you actually read the piece you're responding to. Red links have many purposes (I offered five in my opinion piece), and not all of them are telling other editors to write articles. Fourth, you ask me whether I can "honestly say that [I] write articles because [I] see red links for them". I can honestly say (hand on heart and all the rest of it) that a red link has prompted me to create an article, on many occasions- I suspect lots of other editors can say the same. Indeed, I suspect that many of us started editing Wikipedia because we saw a red link (I know my first edit was to create an article- I don't know whether I saw a red link). Fifth, you tell me that "Usually there are other options to adding red links. You can write a stub. Or often you can create a redirect to a subsection in some existing article." Perhaps, or perhaps not. Sometimes a redirect can be misleading, or inappropriate. Sometimes an editor can lack the expertise, time or inclination to write a stub worth having- if I'm writing about bird species, I'm not necessarily in a position to write about a species of parasitic tick. If I'm writing about a mushroom, I'm not necessarily in a position to write about a chemical compound isolated from the species. In those cases, and many others, red links are appropriate- certainly, it's preferable to no link at all, or a wholly misleading and inappropriate (but blue) link. I'm saddened that you seem to think that I'm some kind of "graffiti" artist, or a participant in some "grotesque" campaign, for suggesting otherwise- especially given the fact that you're the one suggesting that our guidelines and (what were, until recently) standard procedures should be ignored/deprecated. J Milburn (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Epipelagic: Perhaps you never wrote an article just only because of it was redlinked but other users do. And there are even tools for such users, as for example Missing topics. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the rise in red link phobia in recent years is quite disappointing. Even blue link phobia is very common these days and enforced by WP:MOSLINK. I'm finding myself having to regularly copy and paste interesting topics from an article into the search box. It gets a little annoying but it's better than being bold and adding a few more useful links to the article (red or blue) and then being reverted on sight. Gizza(t)(c) 10:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is indeed a rise in red link phobia in recent years, then for me it's just a confirmation of what I suspect since a few years ago: Wikipedia is getting less and less intelligent users every year. Also, every year there are more people interested in smoking crack and less people interested to do something useful. — Ark25 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having encountered my fare share of erythrophobes in the past, I am terribly curious why none of them bothered to comment here. Let's hope you scared them all off for good! Thank you for this well-written and timely piece.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2014; 20:50 (UTC)
Why not showing a hint automatically (by the Mediawiki software) for users who remove red links? 87.78.171.150 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually removing red links to articles which aren't but should be is nothing less than vandalism because of one day those removed links will have to be restored. So it creates only senseless traffic, spams version histories, and wastes time. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree, but I avoided the v-word because I reserve that for bad faith edits. I think that many people who remove red links do so in good faith- they're just misguided. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I often unlink red links. It's usually when there is a list of people with no reason to think they are notable. For example, all of a company's corporate officers might be linked, or all of the people in the credits to an album are linked. On such a list, three links might be blue, one to the appropriate article, one to a person with the same name, and one to a disambiguation page; all the others are red. In that case, I think it's appropriate to remove the links which don't help the reader. SchreiberBiketalk 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are a number of inappropriate red links on Wikipedia. In the cases you have mentioned, it is likely correct that links (red or "blue") should be removed. In my Signpost article, I am talking about appropriate red links- that is, links to topics which should or could be covered on Wikipedia, but which aren't currently. Links to topics which would not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article (such as minor session musicians or extras on a TV show) are not appropriate, and so should be removed. What's worrying is that people seem to assume that all (or almost all) red links are problematic, which is not the case. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an appropriate venue for examining this issue in any depth. I invite anyone who wants to make or support cogent arguments for or against more red links to contribute to this thread here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. You have cured me. HelenOnline 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belated, but I entirely agree. This isn't new, either; I remember translating a disambiguation article from the Spanish Wikipedia in ~2008 or so, and making some new articles off the resulting redlinks by translating the Spanish Wikipedia equivalent. (It was a list of mostly Spanish nobles who shared the same name.) Then another editor came along and reverted my version of the disambiguation page and reverted my revert, because look at those ugly redlinks (to notable people who have articles in another Wikipedia). I pretty much lost my taste for that project immediately and stopped, despite the fact that if I'd had finished, there wouldn't have been redlinks anyway... SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
