Talk:Clapham railway station, Adelaide

Australia: Adelaide / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Clapham railway station, Adelaide is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	April 14, 2013

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

This article lacks references.

Dead Red links[edit]

I do not agree with having links to articles which do not exist. It may be years before someone gets around to making those articles. They simply confuse the reader. The Q915 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not agree with having links to articles which do not exist." - I suggest you go read MoS; there is plenty of justification for red links ...

"It may be years before someone gets around to making those articles." - And why is that a problem?

"They simply confuse the reader." - Who do they confuse, and how do they confuse them?

Yes, that may be your POV, but others, including the MoS, have a different POV ...

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having redlinks in the text of an article avoids needing to add links later on when articles are created later. However, adding them to a 'see also' section just looks bad and I think should be avoided. Wongm (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's much better explained, but it's still just a POV ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Red links. They're relevant subjects, and The Q915's opinion on the general matter of red links is quite irrelevant. Rebecca (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]