Agreed. We used to have a view that expansion was a good thing and means to encourage this, like "seas of credible redlinks", were a good thing. Instead WP now seems to be ossifying. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true. I can't remember where I saw it but I seem to recall Carrite telling us all that English Wikipedia's creation of new articles was starkly down on previous months/years. Is that really what we want for the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am not too happy about red links in navboxes unless the editor who puts them there intends to see that they become blue links within a short space of time, i.e. days not weeks. The box is essentially for users, not editors. Users need information, not a link to article creation. There are alternatives to red links in navboxes: red links in the text of the blue-linked articles included (where at least basic facts about the missing item can also be provided) and comments on the template talk page. Hidden comments for editors on additional items for inclusion can also be made in the edit version of the navbox. Maybe projects like WP:Intertranswiki could also give special attention to EN navboxes which could be enhanced on the basis of their equivalents in other languages where many more items are covered. Finally, newly created navboxes with lots of red links can always be included in the sandbox environment (with links from the talk pages of related articles or WikiProjects) until the red links have been eliminated. Only then should they be included in the mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - A redlink in the article serves a purpose, a redlink in a navigation box, whose sole purpose is navigating to other articles, does not. A link with nothing to navigate to is inappropriate. This proposal would be taking a step backwards and allow justification for navboxes with little to no purpose to clutter up articles, diminishing the value of navigation boxes and creating a distraction for the reader rather than an aid. This proposal helps no one other than editors that wish to clutter up navboxes, it does not help the reader nor does it help an editor that wishes to create articles. - Aoidh (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. I created 161 articles based on a redlinked navbox, 158 of which are GAs and 3 are FAs, all in just over one year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hardly, that is not the purpose of a navbox, nor does your claim change what I said. Redlinks in a navbox serve no purpose and clutter up something that is meant solely to aid in navigation not as a "to do list" for editors. Unless you're suggesting we change the scope of what a navbox is for, what you're suggesting falls outside of that scope. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but you are wrong when you claim "nor does it help an editor that wishes to create articles" as I have adequately demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Creating a template full of redlinks and then creating the article aids no one, and all you did was make a claim, that's not "adequately demonstrated". It is also outside of the scope of what navboxes are for, which is the salient point in what I said. - Aoidh (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Problem is, you didn't make a salient point, at all. You made a claim, which was instantly refuted, with evidence. You lost that point, wholesale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  What evidence are you referring to? You made a claim, which was not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't take the bait, Rambling Man. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with The Rambling Man. I created at least half the articles in Template:ScienceFictionFantasyWeirdPulpMagazines, most of which were redlinks when I built that template. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "Sole purpose" according to who?!? What a lame tautological non-argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That has been the longstanding consensus on Wikipedia for quite some time. Why else would this proposal even be necessary? Navigation boxes are for navigation. That not a "lame tautological non-argument", it's why navboxes exist. Using redlinks in an article is one thing, cluttering up articles with navboxes full of articles that don't exist is quite another. How can we expect a reader to dig through red links to find information when those who support this proposal can't even bother to "read very carefully"? A red link in an article changes what already exists from black to red, that's it. A red link in a navbox adds something that wasn't previously there and that does not exist; clutter. It may be argued to aid an editor (which is arguable), but it does not aid the reader, quite the opposite. If you feel that navboxes exist to aid the editor instead of the reader that's fine, you're welcome to that opinion but you don't have to respond to every single comment that opposes what you're supporting, especially with a comment like that. - Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  23 supports so far and widespread disregard for the guideline brings into questions just how strong this "consensus" ever was. Link to the RfC that led to this purported consensus, please? 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  I agree with Curly Turkey on this, but since consensus can change I don't think it's particularly important we see the prior consensus (though please do provide a link if you have one -- I'd like to read the discussion). If supporting this proposal goes against some definition of the purpose of a navbox, I think you can take it that those supporting it don't agree with that definition of a navbox. My definition would be more like "an aid to navigation to related articles, where those articles exist, and an indication that they need to be created where they do not already exist". I also don't like separating readers and editors as strongly as your argument implies; every single editor is also a reader, and we would like every reader to consider becoming an editor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Curly Turkey. A redlink should only be disallowed in a navbox if it would be disallowed in an article. Redlinks (for articles that are notable) are a good thing; there's no reason to except navboxes. I see some editors above are concerned that more navboxes may appear which are a free-for-all of lists of loosely related items. To me that's an issue that should be addressed by a discussion about navboxes -- if it's a problem, it's got nothing to do with whether the navbox contains redlinks. A poorly designed and low-value navbox is not somehow a better navbox if it contains no redlinks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Absolutely support - what's next, no red links in lists? Red links tell editors that the encyclopedia isn't complete and that we still have work to do. Excluding red links from navboxes can also deceive casual readers into believing that we present comprehensive coverage of topics when we don't. Wikipedia is a work in progress.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support. My first reaction to this was: changing a site-wide guideline because one or two people were doing something annoying is unnecessary WP:CREEP. But as the discussion has developed, a lot of the opposition is based on a strange belief in the One True Teleology of Navboxes. If the current wording is being interpreted in a way that defies common sense, then I suppose it should change. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on yup. Robsinden is using it as a legal enforcement on why navigation boxes should have no red links. And when an editor is actively working on blue linking them to remove them does indeed defy common sense and is disruptive to development.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Absolutely support for all the reasons stated here, but primarily because I totally agree with Curly Turkey's reasoning that red links should only be disallowed if they would be disallowed in an article. I personally have experienced no hindrance of navigation from a red link, quite the contrary, it motivates me to write another article. SusunW (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I see {{IsraelCentralCommandChiefs}} as a clear case where the navbox has red links and it's useful for them to be there. It should be noted that such red links should only exist for pages where the subject would clearly be notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I find redlinks useful in navboxes (especially successive rulers/office holders), which give me a quick overview of which articles are still missing. -Zanhe (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Redlinks invite article creation. It doesn't matter if that's in a template or in the article space. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose While redlinks do invite creation, sometimes this is not a good thing. This is especially true when it comes to television articles. Editors often create episode articles simply to populate navboxes with redlinks and the articles usually fail all of our guidelines for creation. The purpose of navboxes is to facilitate navigation between existing related articles but, when a navbox is full of redlinks ease of navigation can be degraded, or we end up with navboxes full of redlinks. I was recently able to merge {{Homicide: Life on the Street episodes}} and {{Homicide: Life on the Street}} into a single, more useful template mostly by just removing all of the links to articles that would and should never be created. Of the 122 links in this revision of {{Homicide: Life on the Street episodes}}, only 28 were functional links (admittedly they were text-links, but this proposal would result in them being redlinks!). The other 94 were links to articles that would never exist. I accept that there are cases where inclusion of redlinks may be appropriate (there are examples in this RfC), and the current guidelines adequately cover this, but implementation of this proposal opens a new can of worms. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  AussieLegend, the proposal addresses the question of excessive amount of red links and takes concerns like yours into consideration. There is nothing in the proposal which would curtail the removal of most if not all of the 94 red links you removed during your work. Randy Kryn 10:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The wording is far too vague (yes, I know the proposal says "something along the lines of" but something completely different is needed):

• "it is acceptable to have a number of red links" - What exactly is "a number"? Editor opinions will vary.
• "an excessive number of red links which far exceed the number of blue links" - What is "far exceed" twice, thrice, four, 10%, 60%? If there are 5 blue links, does 10 red links far exceed? If there are 50 blue links, does 100 red links far exceed? {{NCIS television}} has 111 blue links. Suppose some editor decides to add every episode of NCIS: Los Angeles, even though only one episode article has ever been, and will likely ever be, written. Having done so, {{NCIS television}} now looks like this, with 255 links. There are only 33 more redlinks than there are blue links, which really isn't "far exceeding" the number, but the template is now full of redlinks sanctioned by the proposed wording.
• "is ill-advised, and editors should refrain" - At best, that's very vague guidance that can and will be easily ignored.
• "unless they are actively working through them and intend to fill them all." - So, an editor in good faith creates all of these redlinks, starts creating articles and then something happens and the editor doesn't continue. This is what happened with NCIS. There was a lot of activity creating articles in 2012 but, by the end of 2013 nobody was creating articles any more. Editors have good intentions that often come to naught.
• "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in navigation boxes" - This is actually the first part of the text but it seems more appropriate to address it last. There is no set minimum number of links that a navbox can contain but the general rule of thumb is that if there are less than 5 there should not be a navbox. It's a rule that is often raised at TfD. A navbox with only two or three active blue links is unlikely to survive TfD so the proposed text is really saying "If a navbox exists it is acceptable to have a number of red links" and this is the opposite of what our guidelines currently say. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" I was recently able to merge Homicide: Life on the Street episodes and Homicide: Life on the Street into a single, more useful template" -Great, in that case then you won't object to us merging the redundant Australian place infobox into a single more useful infobox settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely nothing to do with this RfC about redlinks in navboxes. Please stay on topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The the purpose of navboxes is navigation and redlinks don't provide any destination, pointless for navboxes. Also one point of redlinks is that we can see how many articles use that redlink and decide from that what redlinks should be prioritized for article creation. Redlinks in navboxes artificially amplify that count as now every article using that navbox is now part of that count. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: the proposal supports what most content creators and new contributor mentors know: suggesting new articles through redlinks is a net benefit to the community. There is no reason to believe that navboxes are somehow exempt from this impact. Moreover, the arguments against the navboxes including redlinks ignore exactly what they communicate to readers beyond acting as a navigation tool: what we currently have in the encyclopedia, what is notable and should be included in the encyclopedia, and how these topics relate to eachother. Most of our readers do know what redlinks mean (or should, to become more literate in Wikipedia as a "work in progress"), and won't severely misinterpret the redlinks. Moreover, an aesthetic argument against this is absurd, in that we need people to see Wikipedia as partially broken, so that they have the same urge to fix it that brough all of us here as editors. Lets not get constrained by narrow reading of our own policies, Wikipedia should not become a bureaucracy, Sadads (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose as presented - The existing exception that Alakzi cites above sufficiently allows for red links in series of information, as in {{Saturn Awards}}—and even that is sometimes pushing it (I assume the rationale is that to leave out the years without articles would suggest that the awards were not held in those years, but I don't know how necessary an individual article is for the 1983 11th Saturn Awards). But I think editors supporting this proposal are confusing the function of nav templates with that of lists or categories. They are NAVIGATION templates, and it's great if they can also be useful as "lists" of related topics, but that functionality shouldn't supersede or hinder their basic function just for the sake of a "complete" navbox.

In a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates someone suggested it would be an "error" to have a nav template without all related links because the reader is assuming it is complete and it is actually missing information (some examples given were {{Horse breeds of France}} and {{First Nations in New Brunswick}}). I see that point there, it is helpful to cover all aspects of the topic. But I say, create stubs for those missing articles. Or create a List of horse breeds of France that is linked on the template. Opening the floodgates on redlinks will, as others have suggested, result in some massive templates listing too many redlinks for the sake of "completeness". I have no problem with redlinks but I think we all know, realistically, that the criteria "articles likely to be created" is often grossly misinterpreted by well-meaning editors, and a redlink-filled nav template is a more of a hindrance/eyesore than a redlink-filled list.

The first example that comes to mind would be nav templates for writers or actors listing every one of their credits. {{Poul Anderson}} is a great example of what could happen; he is a prolific and notable author but only a relative handful or articles exist for his written works. The template seems to list everything he's ever written, in this case unlinked (I resisted removing the unlinked items because an editor was "working on it") but obviously a redlinked version would be ridiculous. Poul Anderson bibliography exists, and is linked on the template, so there is no reason to list them all again in the template as redlinks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And AussieLegend points out another great example of a potential problem, TV series episodes.— TAnthony^Talk 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TAnthony. I'm the editor you mention, and that's not exactly what I said. My point is best explained with an example. Let's take the example of {{Iowa Secretaries of State}}. This template contains an accurate complete set of people, with 19 redlinks and 12 blue links. You stumble across this, what does a responsible editor do?

(1) Eliminate all those 19 redlinks. If you belong to the "no redlinks" and "navboxes are only for navigation among existing articles" crowd, that's exactly what you would do. This kind of thing has happened a lot. You would only leave the 12 blue links. Because that's what the policy says. To me, that edit is destructive and creates an error, because it leaves a confusing and misleading result. The template still says "Iowa Secretaries of State" but now it's only partially and randomly populated. Somebody else, months or years from now, will have to come along and clean that up.

(2) Stop and take the time to create stub articles for Elisha Cutler Jr., Josiah H. Bonney, and the 17 others. I see the value in that approach but I, and I suspect many others, have other wikipedia priorities.

(3) Leave it like it is. If you see it as responsible to leave this template in its current state, with its redlinks intact (perhaps to prompt some future editor to complete some articles), then you agree that leaving some red links are okay in some circumstances, and you agree that navboxes serve a purpose beyond strict navigation.

Interested in your response. Lockley (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lockley, I didn't mention you by name in my comment because I didn't want it to seem like I was "calling you out" LOL, because I was just using your comment as an example. Anyway, I totally get what you're saying, but the existing language of the guideline allows for {{Iowa Secretaries of State}} to exist with redlinks (and no challenge by me) because it is a logical group/set of data with specific parameters. Yet I would point out that the template is not named "ALL Iowa Secretaries of State", and so there is not necessarily the expectation of completeness. I mean, I have no specific opinion either way about this example, but there's already a redlinked list at Iowa Secretary of State; consensus may find that this particular navbox template is justified, but how many more are not, considering an equivalent list exists somewhere? I'm letting this crazy discussion play out, but I think it boils down to some people use nav boxes strictly to navigate and some see them as you do, and the sides cannot compromise. And some editors are really uncivil about it, by the way. I don't like this wide open proposal that the loudest people are fighting for because, no matter those that say otherwise, we are going to get a lot of navboxes overrun with redlinks that really don't need to exist. Heck we kind of already have them.— TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First TAnthony I truly appreciate your tone (somebody I can talk to!) so thank you. Second I think this is a really critical point of disagreement worth teasing out. You see a template called "Iowa Secretaries of State" and read it as "SOME Iowa Secretaries of State". I read it as "ALL Iowa Secretaries of State." I believe most casual wiki users would also assume completeness in such a template. To take it a step further "SOME" begs the question about "which ones?". It's not deliberately selected, it's a fragmented and random set based on whichever SoS's happened to have completed biographies. To me, that's misleading and illogical. Like you, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of extreme positions seen here. All best to you. Lockley (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley and TAnthony: Y'all realize, of course, that the Iowa secretaries of state example is covered by the "complete set" and the "succession" exceptions built into the existing language of the current guideline, right? If three or more Iowa secretaries of state are notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG, then a navbox that includes all former holders of that office should be permitted under the existing guideline. If someone is deleting links from such navboxes, then their interpretation is wrong, and I would gladly lend my voice to correcting their misinterpretation. This is the sort of informed discussion we should be having as part of this RfC, not the insults and name-calling that has become far too prevalent. I am convinced the real problem here is the failure to properly interpret the existing guideline in many instances, and have been over-zealous in enforcing that interpretation. Dr. Blofeld's proposal, while well-intended, takes us to the opposite extreme with no effective limits on red links in navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, you and I agree perfectly on this. And as we're fine with redlinks that fall reasonably within the existing guidelines, I think we're actually on the same page as Lockley. — TAnthony^Talk 23:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1 and TAnthony:. Yes we three concur -- and it's lovely to concur -- with one followup question from me. What about filmographies. I've had an editor, um, zealously inform me that filmography templates do not count as complete sets, and allowing red links there will lead to a sea of red, lake of fire, etc. etc. This seems slightly different and maybe more problematic than other complete sets. I'm willing to accept any answer there, really, as long as a casual user has his or her expectations set correctly when using the template. That's what I really care about. Lockley (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TAnthony. First, there are no templates for actors. Some writer's templates, like the Poul Anderson example you point out, should and will eventually be culled back considerably. If this proposal is passed, and it looks like it is going that way, then subsequent questions regarding the extent and number of red links will likely be discussed and decided on this page and other template/red link pages. The Poul Anderson template will not look the same at some point, that is an extreme example requiring a non-extreme solution. Randy Kryn 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, given that the closure of this WP:RfC should be based on the strength of the arguments and not on the number of support votes vs. the number of oppose votes (mostly anyway), and that not all of the support voters are in full agreement on the proposed wording, why do you think that it looks like this proposal will pass? Hopefully, the closer does not simply base the outcome of this discussion on something akin to a headcount. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, passing is guaranteed, as opposers' arguments are for the most part based on the tautology that navboxes are for navigation between existing aritcles because navboxes are for navigation between existing articles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that, in response to me, if Randy Kryn didn't state that the oppose voters' arguments are weaker, someone else would. And my answer to that is that the view that the oppose arguments are weaker is incorrect. The support arguments are clearly weaker and flawed, and my opinion on that won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they're not merely weaker—they're virtually non-existent. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you won't be closing this WP:RfC. We need editors who take the time to read both sides and to recognize whatever validity in them exists. To state that the oppose votes are "not merely weaker—they're virtually non-existent" is such poor comprehension of the oppose votes (it's either that or simply a bias toward the support votes, even the clear-cut poor support votes) that I see even less of a reason to debate you than I already did. So go ahead and get WP:The last word; I'll give you that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, since all the rationale supporting this change goes against the established properties of nav boxes as listed at WP:NAV, I'm not sure why you think this is a lock.— TAnthony^Talk 22:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And requests to show where the purported "consensus" for that was built have been entirely ignored. The evidence suggests that (a) there is no consensus for that; and (b) there likely never was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

• Comment on completeness of navboxes I think the "reader is assuming it is complete and it is actually missing information" problem is very, very important! {{Belmont Stakes}} is a case in point: until the recent edit adding black text of times where we have not race articles, one might think that a 140+ year race only existed since the mid-2000s! If people are offended by a sea of red, then at a minimum, black type needs to be included so that editors can add links to an existing template - and, for that matter, realize that there IS a navbox. The notion that, as in TRM's Boat Race navbox, articles can be created in "days" when there are dozens is a concept that could only be cooked up by someone who has never even created a stub! The wiki is never completed and a redlink can exist for years before the article gets created; that's not a crime! Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see this as helpful for navigation, and I also don't see how any reasonable reader is going to misconstrue the race as only having begun in the 2000s. If that's the question they are seriously asking themselves, they aren't (and shouldn't!) use a navbox to answer the question; they're going to Google and end up on Belmont Stakes which will tell them the actual information they care about--that the races started in the 19th century and has continued since in some form or another. A list of all races would also make it explicit; I see no list linked in the navbox but given the concern of misunderstanding there is obviously value in a list; presumably such a list might include the year and winner of each race. Such a list even exists, at Belmont_Stakes_Top_three_finishers, in the navbox in question. Said list should be more prominently linked in the navbox and should also have that sea of red links people may or may not want in this regard. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see this as helpful for navigation—could we drop this broken record? As if "navigation" in the ideologically strict and narrow sense of "navigating between, and only between, existing articles" were ever the sole purpose of a navbox. Nobody has ever been hurt by a redlink in a navbox, seeing the redlinks is at the very least informational (as in chronologies or list of counties), and they encourage by their visibility the creation of large numbers of articles. The problem? That they don't conform to your ideology. The solution? Dump the ideology. Navboxes are works in progress that are part of the work in progress that is Wikipedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Zero people are claiming red links are a "crime", so that's a non sequitur. They are claiming that a sea of red links in a navigational box is useless for the explicit purpose of navigation.

  Zero people are claiming one can create a half dozen stubs in a day. Or 1 stub in a year. Or whatever rate. They (at least I) are/am claiming that using a navigational box to organize that creative set of efforts is not the right tool [Izno's caveat: in the mainspace; no-one will care if the template in question is never used in the mainspace]. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Izno makes a good point in that we would be reinforcing the misconception that nav templates are always a complete summation of the topic or equivalent to an infobox, it's a navigation tool and not a list. Period.— TAnthony^Talk 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Period. Question mark, rather, or should be, as you don't appear to have asked yourself why that should be so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this proposal contradicts the established properties of nav boxes as listed at WP:NAV, and changing the function of a nav box is a bigger discussion than this.— TAnthony^Talk 22:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Established by whom? I've asked this already, and been ignored—likely because the purported "consensus" was never quite consensual. If you're argument boils down to "that's what it says at WP:NAV", then you simply have no argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to go back 10 years or whatever to determine exactly how the policy came to pass, but at this point it doesn't matter. The function and properties of nav boxes have been set down (with explanations) and followed since the days of yore, and you can't just say, "I don't like this and since I can't find the ancient discussion that set it up this way, it should be changed." Like I said, if you are challenging the very nature of them, that's fine, but then that's bigger than redlinks, that's a pro and con discussion why nav boxes should or shouldn't be like articles.— TAnthony^Talk 23:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather I'm welcome to ignore claims of a consensus where it has yet to be shown there ever was one. The overwhelming support this proposal has garnered so far and the widespread disregard shown for such an unsupportable prohibition show the "consensus" likely was never there, and certainly is not there now. Say bye-bye to garbage guidelines. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw, readers are not supposed to use a nav box to learn about a topic as you are suggesting with Belmont Stakes. Again, this is not an infobox. — TAnthony^Talk 19:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not what I was trying to say, I am saying you don't want to mislead the reader (or navigator) with a "here be dragons/terra incognito" incomplete navbox. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • readers are not supposed to use a nav box to learn about a topic: editors are not supposed to discourage readers from learning from a navbox. What possible positive outcome could come from such behaviour? Stop telling people what to think. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, goodness, you're right. We can't have people learning things in an unapproved manner! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on list alternatives: Lists that are a sea of red are not useful either. Using lists as a substitute for navboxes is inappropriate. The Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria states, "...a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." Navboxes are the place for a comprehensive "linkable topic outline" if you will; incompleteness of the itms in the outline doesn't mean you exclude them! Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting the FLC for any list is a red herring, and on top of that, if you can't get a list to have either blue or black links rather than red, why would you want a navbox for the same purpose? --Izno (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the navbox is visible on existing pages and fullfills the reason we allow red links at all - to flag that an article needs to be created. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Red links today are articles tomorrow, even if "tomorrow" takes a year or two or three... Think of the big picture, people. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Navboxes are navigational tools, not lists. The content of a navbox should be limited to blue links with the barest minimum of additional information necessary to make the organisation of those links clear.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I don't understand the bit where you say " should be limited to blue links with the barest minimum of additional information necessary to make the organisation of those links clear". Readers all understand that links will take them somewhere. If the link is a different colour and it takes them somewhere yet to be created, that's initially disappointing, but hey, they might think... "you know what, I'll create that"! Cherish the thought, nurture the enthusiasm, encourage the creation! Alternatively, stick to keeping Wikipedia as small as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "Albums" before a list of album links and "singles" before a list of links to singles. No red links, and no expositions in black. As for the rest of your comment, abusing navboxes doesn't have all of these wonderful side effects, it just makes them harder to use and monitor. There's all kinds of places where descriptions of things we have no article about make sense, but a navbox isn't one of them.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is small? Not in the least. Like I stated in the #Clarification of 'likelihood' section above, one of the reasons cited for the decline in Wikipedia editors is that so much of Wikipedia is complete; it covers so much already. In other words, when an editor thinks to create a Wikipedia article, it often turns out that a Wikipedia article on that topic already exists (which is also why Wikipedia gets a lot of WP:Redundant forks). So what is left is to improve the Wikipedia articles that we have. It seems that part of Wikipedia's success was that that WP:Newbies were more interested in creating articles that Wikipedia did not have than they were interested in improving the existing articles. And with Wikipedia as big as it is now, it saw a decline in those types of editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, to me, that's another GOOD REASON for redlinks in navboxes — wiki is far from "complete" (again, Belmont Stakes...) One reason for redlinks is precisely to avoid duplication; for example, when I began to edit wikipedia, there were three different articles on the Konik horse - we can't redlink categories, and absent a navbox, no one thinks to look for a list. A navbox with a redlink shows that an article should be there, but doesn't exist yet. Black text may be visually more appealing, but it's the red links that will enhance navigability in the long run by encouraging people to "finish" sets of articles. Again, User:The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles are a case in point. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that we should add red links to the navbox. What is so different about having red links in a navbox as opposed to red links in a See also section? Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, as nobody's arguing that redlinks should be added to "See also" sections. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Earlier on, I missed Curly Turkey's "It doesn't matter" argument, an argument that acts as if comparing similar matters, or rather matters that would be similar if implemented, is a foreign and/or invalid route to take (despite being a route taken times over in this discussion), but I clearly continued the WP:See also angle with my "02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)" post below. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is ridiculously unrelated to what I wrote, and extraordinarily difficult to parse grammatically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also take note that, per below, any other snide remark he makes to me in this discussion (or, really, anything else he states to me in this discussion) will likely be ignored by me. In fact, anything else he states to me on Wikipedia has a good chance of being ignored by me unless I "have to" respond. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But of course the slander will not cease. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support When you have a bestselling writer, sometimes they allow red links to his books that don't have articles, and sometimes people go through insisting it be erased. Its all about whatever random people are around at the time to argue. Looks ridiculous for many things to not have a complete list there. Even if not red links, they should still be there as text. Dream Focus 23:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any wording that discourages people from "fixing" the encyclopedia by removing red links from articles where they have no familiarity with the content. Of course it's good to spend time with an article and attempt to improve it, and that may involve also removing some red links. However, interfering with editors who build good content is the worst possible activity that can be performed on Wikipedia, and rigidly applying a rather unimportant guideline is counterproductive. The comments accompanying the "London and North Eastern Railway locomotives" example above show how red links can develop the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask: Considering the problems that red links can and have caused (including problems noted in this WP:RfC), you consider the WP:Red link guideline "a rather unimportant guideline" for Wikipedia? Or do you simply mean the disputed text in question is rather unimportant? I see nothing rigid about using a navbox the way it is intended to be used -- for navigation to existing articles. Stating that we should be using navigation boxes to spur on article creation (especially given the fact that red links are often used by editors to ensure that an article be created even when that article should not be created) makes as much sense to me as stating that we should use the See also section to spur on article creation. I guess the WP:See also guideline is next; are we to move over there after this WP:RfC is closed and start a WP:RfC about how only using the See also section to take editors to existing articles is applying that guideline rigidly? The disputed text in question has an exception for the "no red links" application, just like the Disambiguation pages section of the WP:Red link guideline does. I highly doubt that these matters were not well thought out before implementation; my experience with the inappropriate ways that editors add red links tells me that they were well thought out. And considering all the WP:Disruption I see on Wikipedia day in and day out, I could not disagree more with the notion that "interfering with editors who build good content is the worst possible activity that can be performed on Wikipedia"; I've seen worse actions at this site, and there are plenty of valid times to interfere with editors who build good content on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

especially given the fact that red links are often used by editors to ensure that an article be created even when that article should not be created^{[citation needed]} Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that these matters were not well thought out before implementation: So dig up the discussion and prove it. This ain't the first time it's been requested. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

considering all the WP:Disruption I see on Wikipedia day in and day out ... there are plenty of valid times to interfere with editors who build good content on Wikipedia. Redlinking is disruptive behaviour, now, is it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a more experienced Wikipedia editor, you wouldn't need a citation needed tag for what is supposedly "the most fantastically outlandish of claims." Other editors have essentially stated what I stated in that regard above, and that should be your answer. If you think we are lying, that is your problem. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So back up your claim. You've all failed to do so, despite multiple requests. If you can't back it up, then it's you're problem if the majority don't buy your flimsy position. — and that should be your answer: no, that is an evasive non-answer deserving of no respect. If you were a more experienced Wikipedia editor: please explain what that was supposed to mean. Are you claiming I'm an unexperienced editor? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And asking whether or not redlinking is disruptive behavior, given that the WP:Red link guideline is clear that it can be, and years of editing Wikipedia should have shown you the different ways that it can be, is so silly that I should not respond to you any further. But then again, you do like butting in to answer questions (or otherwise respond to comments) I have proposed for others, and in the most provocative of ways. WP:Baiting is clearly your style; but never the matter, I have much experience with those type of editors as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

given that the WP:Red link guideline is clear: more of the same tautology? the guideline's validity is being questioned, and requests for the RfC that led to the guideline are completely ignored. Likely because there never was a consensus. If there ever was, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. I ain't holding my breath. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That the guideline was followed for years and worked well for years is proof enough of the previous WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidleine was not followed—that's why certain gunslingers have wasted so much time shooting down navbox redlinks. Seriously, Flyer22, put up or shut up: show us the consensus, or it never happened. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "put up or shut up," where is the proof that the guideline was not followed? All of the oppose voters have surely seen that the guideline was followed. Your argument of "Oh, so many people were not following the guideline" is asinine. A lot of editors don't follow the WP:Logical quotation guideline either, as recently noted, and yet enough editors still follow it. A lot of editors don't follow a lot of WP:Policies and guidelines, but that does not mean that there is no WP:Consensus to follow them. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the continual dodging, how about you just show us that "consensus" that never existed? Oh, right, you can't, be it never existed. Meanwhile, a strong consensus to overthrow all that has safely built up on this page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. But thanks for once again showing editors that "a strong consensus" to you equates to headcount. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it equates to a slew of strong arguments from a large number of active, productive editors, versus dodging and tautology and unbacked claims. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies in this WP:RfC show your inexperience; you've been editing Wikipedia for years, with WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles to your name and yet you respond in such a clueless way with regard to redlinking. Dirtlawyer1 was absolutely right; you should know better. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely discredited yourself with that one—your argument has no more substance to it than that someone disagrees with you (and a lot of someones, at that! 32 at present count, and some of the opposes are only opposed to the wording). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You discredited yourself from the start as far as this debate goes; all I did was point out how your inexperience clouds your judgment. And as for "your argument has no more substance to it than that someone disagrees with you (and a lot of someones, at that!)," nope, my testy one, that is how you have gone about this WP:RfC. Not me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be inexperienced in the use of language—your point is sinking deeply in a haze of gibberish. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your WP:Baiting or WP:Personal attacks; both make you silly and desperate. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch who you accuse of personal attacks (and "desperate"!), Flyer22—you just got off swiping every editor you disagree with on this page with your "inexperienced" prattle—I merely pointed out that your gibberish is gibberish. Y'know, gibberish like redefining "inexperienced" to mean "anyone and everyone who disagrees with me". That's almost the definition of "desperate". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that "you just got off swiping every editor you disagree with on this page with your 'inexperienced' prattle—I merely pointed out that your gibberish is gibberish." That is incorrect. I specifically called you inexperienced. And any Wikipedia editor who states that redlinking is never a problem, which is what you have essentially stated, is an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. If redlinking were never a problem, the WP:Red link guideline would not point to problems regarding redlinking and editors in this WP:RfC would not be pointing out problems regarding redlinking. Your attempts to make these problems out to be "gunslinging" and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationales are absurd. You know where I cited WP:The Last Word above? I invoke that again now; go ahead and get it, since I would rather never discuss a thing with an editor who immediately has to resort to WP:Baiting consisting of all kinds of snide remarks and WP:Personal attacks just to try to win an argument. If you had waited before you jumped right into such behavior, you would have gotten more respect from me. But some people do have impulse control problems. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

any Wikipedia editor who states that redlinking is never a problem, which is what you have essentially stated: What a pantload. I never stating any such thing. Just keep embarrassing yourself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as for examples of inappropriate redlinking, examples were given above. AussieLegend, for instance, clearly offered good detail on that; seen here, here (with a tweak here). Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear if you buy the ideology. Murky as mud if you don't. The invalid redlinks AussieLegend points out would be invalid in the body of an article, too—thus it is not an argument against redlinks in navboxes specifically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think of it as "not being blind." Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do, but that's nothing resembling a coherent argument. Meanwhile, you ignored my rebuttle to the AussieLegend thingy you linked at. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments for redlinking in navboxes have not been coherent, and your mudslinging has not been justified. Any other time you reply to me, I will likely ignore you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, an end to your circular gibberish. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these add-ins, we've already established that you and I see the WP:Consensus policy differently. And as for AussieLegend's rationale, you are incorrect about what it is an argument for; his arguments are indeed arguments against red links in navboxes (you know, just like I'm sure he would argue that red links don't belong in the See also section either). Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The invalid redlinks AussieLegend points out would be invalid in the body of an article, too—thus it is not an argument against redlinks in navboxes specifically. - I'm having trouble following your logic here. If they're inappropriate in the body of an article too, which is acknowledging that they are not valid in a navbox too, then how is that not a valid argument that they're invalid in a navbox? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: So you just ignored the word "specifically" entirely? Even after having quoted it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read it. I just don 't understand yopur "logic". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: It's not about logic—it's about reading comprehension. If they're inappropriate in an article, they're inappropriate in a navbox. It's not possible to parse my statement otherwise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For anyone wanting more of an elaboration on what type of editor Curly Turkey is, see this little category he created because of our dispute above in this section. Yep, he also apparently violates WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AussieLegend. I am no stranger to Wikipedia editors taking a dispute far too seriously and WP:Harassing me thereafter. And I know how to take care of my "fans", as many (including those watching my talk page) know. Flyer22 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The wording "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in navigation boxes, it is acceptable to have a number of red links." could leave us with a Navbox with 3 working links and 15 red links. I might be able to support a revised version of the proposal. Doug Weller (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral per this:

"Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system"

— The collaborative organization of knowledge, Communications of the ACM

Of course I have an essay called avoid excessive redlinks, but using them in navboxes looks perfectly fine. It doesn't matter wheter there are bluelinks or not in the navbox, there should still be some redlinks in it (as long as they follow WP:REDYES). --TL22 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- redlinks are useful to build and develop the encyclopedia. They highlight what is missing, and act as placeholders. I find adding a redlink to a nav tmeplate when I don't have the time right then to create the article useful. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the vagueness of the original #Revision proposal, prefer the #Other approach proposed by myself, for reasons explained in that section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alternative of having black names not linked causes extra work that may not be done, and thus do a disservice to our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, especially when such links are to previously deleted articles; the navboxes would likely become bloated otherwise. Concur with Kww and Flyer22 that it wouldn't aid navigation at all through articles, and navboxes are not meant to be lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There's nothing wrong with a redlink in a navbox as long as the target can conceivably sustain an article, and said article would meet WP:GNG by WP:V by WP:RS. The presence of redlinks indicates that an article is needed, and may indeed inspire an editor to create an article. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other approach

Redlinks in navboxes:

• Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
• Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
• Apart from the previous, when two or more of the following questions are answered with no it is better not to add the redlink to the navbox:
  1. Will the navbox contain more bluelinks than redlinks?
  2. Will the navbox contain less than thirty links (redlinks and bluelinks taken together)?
  3. Does the redlink fill a gap in a consecutive series of similar topics?
  4. Is the redlink about a topic of similar or greater notability than the bluelinks in the box?

The above ruleset is my proposal to replace the current guidance on redlinks in navboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what is the rationale behind the "less than thirty links"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. rationale for less than thirty links
    1. Something I read (tx. to Michael Bednarek)
    2. Avoid excesses like {{L. Frank Baum}} - that template should be split in somewhat more manageable portions, more redlinks would really, really not be changes for the better for such templates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
       • I'm leary of riders on bills; unless there's a prior consensus for such a restriction, it should be left out of this proposal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
         • As there was no previous bill to that effect, there is no rider. I propose something that afaik hasn't been thus concrete in guidance thus far (WP:CLN#Navigation templates, Disadvantages No. 3 puts it mildly vague "Can become ugly ..., e.g. by ..., size, ..."). It is possible to disagree on the 30 link upper limit if it are all sensible bluelinks – adding redlinks beyond that is something I hope consensus may see as something better to avoid (unless when it's the only downside for the added redlink...). Yes, new approach proposed to get out of the circularities in the discussions thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
           • All the more reason to keep it clean and separate concerns. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
             • As said, it would probably not work as a separate concern (for me it wouldn't), but put into perspective like the proposal does, it becomes very workable.

             Whether it was or was not proposed before is a (yawn) procedural discussion, afaics unrelated to the merit of the proposal.

             Whether there is a rationale for that part of the proposal is what was asked: I explained my rationale, and continue to see no reason for a pre-emptive exclusion of the idea from the proposal. Let's see what others think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

             • Well, I support the idea in principle, but oppose the rider—the last thing we need is arbitrary numbers and more instruction creep to feed the WikiLawyers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
             • I owe you an apology, apparently I misunderstood rider, and struck part of my first response above. As such I don't see it as a rider though: the concern in much of the discussion above is about arriving at unsightly navboxes, with low practical value because of the excess redlinks. So yes, at the core of the solution to get out of that, as proposed above:
               • Don't add a new redlink to a navbox that already has 14 redlinks and no more than 15 bluelinks (combination of #1 and #2) – note: it is this, and only this combination that would limit the further conversion of no-links into redlinks at {{L. Frank Baum}}
               • Don't add a 30th redlink to a navbox when that redlink is not also part of a series (combination of #2 and #3)
               • Don't add a 30th redlink to a navbox when that redlink refers to the type of secondary topics not yet covered by any article in the field of interest (combination of #2 and #4)
               • #2 as a separate rule does not impose limits for redlinks (and the number of bluelinks isn't even related to this guidance on redlinks in navboxes).

             I'm as opposed to instruction creep as the next guy (and am certainly sensible to the argument), but what I read in the discussion above is a lot of opposition to the current vagueness of the guidance: some editors delete redlinks from navboxes based on a misapprehension of current guidance, and so I sense a definite preference to have a ruleset that depends less on casual interpretation to avoid excesses. So I proposed a ruleset with a clearer framework, however with a rather broad upper limit. For that reason in a "combination of at least two no's" logic it is part of the framework as proposed, and not a rider. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

             Items 3 & 4 in your list seem reasonable, but I don't see why a bluelink should be treated differently than a redlink -- in other words these seem to be strictures that might be applied to any link added to a navbox. I can't see any reason for items 1 & 2; and I think that's the point of many of the supports above -- many editors (myself included) don't see anything wrong with a navbox full of red links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

             I do, and have added my !vote above for clarity. When you're about to create the 30th redlink in a navbox, I think it's a reasonable expectation that any editor would take a step back, and think, maybe time to start up some stubs before I continue to expand this box with more red. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I could get behind that sort of idea, but only if the proposal in the thread above were leaning strongly toward a consensus for allowing a bunch of redlinks. But it's not. So, we really only need the third of those four criteria, and the other one I outlined: A gap in a collection of article links that would actually be complete with it, which doesn't necessarily imply a consecutive order; e.g. a navbox of European cuisine article, with a couple of redlinks because we don't have an Luxembourgish cuisine (or whatever) yet. There's probably a way to write that into one point. PS: That said, I agree that some of the other criteria are good for links in general, not just redlinks. So, this is onto something, but not quite there yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, an old, but still correct, name for navboxes is "series boxes", so under the current guidance "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. ..." (bolding added) means, literally: no limits to any redlinks in any navboxes. So I think: fighting windmills with the original #Revision proposal. The only problem with the current "...are part of a series..." is its vagueness, i.e. its proneness to never-ending discussion as demonstrated on this page. So lets make it somewhat more manageable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

{{Bach violin concertos}} has currently the following content:

One way to expand this template would be:

I suppose I'd find it much more useful to do something like this:

Yeah, I suppose redlinks are different from bluelinks from where I stand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, the bluelinks are pretty, bot on the other, there are a lot of redirects and it misleadingly suggests that articles exist when they do not. But either way, the point about redlinks is that there is a place for them in a navbox, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—redirects don't facilitate "navigation" in the narrow sense the opposers are promoting, nor do they promote creation and participation as they appear to be links to existing articles. I'm not opposed to redirects per se—I can imagine them being used to send readers to substantial subsections of articles relevant to the box but where the main article is not—but I don't see this as a "solution" to any of the participants' problems. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects could be viable for navboxes, but red links definitely don't benefit navigation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS If you don't understand why editors add red links to navigation templates, especially if they intend blue linking them within a short time period you really have no place editing wikipedia. It's one of the most important things we can do to promote growth and ensure wikipedia is comprehensive as possible on here. If any given topic has notable missing articles, we need to start them to complete the big picture. Hiding red links helps nobody either and stunts growth. Amazes me how many intelligent people here come across as a bleeding imbecile in understanding this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should name them navboxes differently? How about topic-boxes, summarizing articles around a topic, blue or red? - For me, they serve more purposes than mere navigation, - I rather look there than in "see also" sections which are hard to maintain. I add a new article to a topic-box: it's visible in all related articles with one edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revive "series boxes" (the name used until 2008)? Nah, don't think this is a discussion about the name, or that whatever would be solved by naming them differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A big problem it would solve is ridding us of WikiLaywers out to obliterate redlinks because they "don't facilitate navigation". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates → Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes? May seem like a logical next step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) They will when they become bluelinks, and they are more likely to become bluelinks if visible (and there is quantitative data to back that up, scroll up) (b) There is no reason the function of a box should be restricted to a literalist definition of "navigation", or even strictly to navigation at all (c) "Navboxes are boxes for navigation because navboxes are boxes for navigation" is a tautology. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the redirecting bluelinks have an advantage for anticipated article creation too: shows where to begin starting from content already present in the encyclopedia, avoids creation of content forks, indicates where to leave a link to the new article, etc. (apart from the navigation advantage already mentioned)

Maybe quality of content is preferable over quantity of new articles? Creation of new articles, or shear number of articles should never be a goal in itself. IMHO, this has never been about easy navigation alone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both quality and quantity are goals of Wikipedia—they aren't in conflict. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality can be improved without thinking about quantity (e.g. removing whatever is superfluous), quantity, on the other hand, can never be increased without thinking of quality. In this context "both quality and quantity are goals" is a platitude. I wrote "...number of articles should never be a goal in itself" (bolding added). OTOH, improving quality can be a goal in itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a platitude—it's a fact, and tangential to the issue of redlinks in navboxes. As someone who's brought seven articles he created from scratch to FA, and has done the same for several former stubs, you're not going to convince me that article creation has the slightest negative impact on quality. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik the definition of a platitude is a fact that is tangential without adressing the topic.

Re. "not going to convince me that article creation has the slightest negative impact on quality": AfD? CSD? that takes a lot of resources of Wikipedia volunteers, these efforts would be better spent adding quality content. So if the creation of an article that under any normal expectancy is due for deletion can be prevented I'm satisfied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for clarifying: your beef is against redlinks themselves. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, see above #Other approach, which favours intelligent redlinks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea to have a redirect to from where an article might start, but looking for BWV 1044 and landing on top of Keyboard concertos doesn't help too much, even with the number in lead and TOC. Same for BWV 1044, btw. How about Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Concerto in A minor, BWV 1044 instead, IF? I doubt, however, that we need individual articles on these concertos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "I doubt, however, that we need individual articles on these concertos," indeed, as said, another advantage of redirect bluelinks is to not make it too easy to create unnecessary doubles.

  Re. BWV 1044: deep link fixed, but yeah I should have used more optimised redirect links in the example.

  I think some of them are eligible as separate articles: BWV 1044 and 1045 probably, I suppose also an article that treats Bachs reconstructed concertos would be welcome and/or one on 1060R (which afaik is far more known in its reconstructed state than the original harpsichord version). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  An attitude I had about most articles on ukiyo-e pictures—I shrugged it off when Crisco encouraged me to make some, until I was egged on to do Three Beauties of the Present Day and found, in my research, that enough sources exist to create literally hundreds of such as-yet-uncreated articles. The credibility of an article should not be rejected until the research has been conducted and the unviability of the article determined. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point: for navboxes I think the responsiblity for at least a tentative viability research should be by the one considering to add a redlink to a navbox. The difference is pretty much in the eligible for redirect, which is less of an issue in the body of an article text, but imho should be checked before adding a redlink to a navbox. Also the reason why I proposed to put some numerical limit to redlinks in navboxes is that at the latest by the 30th redlink there would be a reflex to maybe start some viability checking, and not leave that work to others for hundreds of redlinks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with numbers is (a) they're arbitrary (b) they're prone to literalist WikiLawyering (oops—you hit 31 links—time to start decimating redlinks!) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The preliminary viability check for redlinks in navboxes seems like a sound principle to me, there are maybe other ways to incorporate that in guidance than the numerical approach. Any suggestions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a good principle, but, of course, impossible to enforce. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Just thinking out aloud, maybe redlinks in this format could be suggested for navboxes: draft / scores, where the parenthical bluelink shows as well a viability check as some basic material for an article - and disappears automatically when the article is created. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a good idea: establishing intentions or notability. The list of composers by name accepts entries for people with an article in any language. The proposal below is too complicated for me to support. 3 of 4 yes requires to read 4 and answer 3, - while I think just the last one would be enough to support inclusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal

Redlinks in navboxes:

• Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
• Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
• Apart from the previous,

  present the redlink in the {{ill}} format as explained below, e.g. draft / scores, with the parenthical link giving some idea on what base the article could be started

  --or--

  Add the redlink only when at least three of the following questions are answered with yes:

  1. Will the navbox contain more bluelinks than redlinks?
  2. Will the navbox contain less than thirty links (redlinks and bluelinks taken together)?
  3. Does the redlink fill a gap in a consecutive coherent series of similar topics?
  4. Is the redlink about a topic of similar or greater notability than the bluelinks in the box?

See above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced "consecutive" by "coherent" per a remark given above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part about adding the {{ill}} note to redlinks has potential. The "fill a gap in a consecutive series" is a good basis, as is the notability criteria. The "less than 30 links" standard is not suitable (141 Kentucky Derby races to write about, maybe half of them done, and it's going to take years, probably) and the "more redlinks than bluelinks" might be grounds to not add it to an article, yet, but I think it isn't grounds for creation... Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{KentuckyDerby}} passes #1, #3 and #4 of the "three yesses" provision, where is the problem?

Note, however, the problem with several of the "by year" articles on individual Kentucky Derby editions: they seem to derive their notability exclusively from primary sources (no third-party sources mentioned in the article). I don't say such problems can't be coped with, only that "en masse" creation of separate edition articles seems not to be the first thing to do now.

"en [1954 Kentucky Derby; 1954]" would also make more sense for inclusion in the template than the current "1954" (to give only one example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified

per Gerda's above "...too complicated...":

replace the current last sentence of the second paragraph of WP:REDNOT ("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, and the like.") by:

An exception is red links in navboxes when the editor that adds the redlink accepts the WP:BURDEN to show that an article is viable, e.g. by using an {{ill}} template as explained below.

That's the simplest I can come up with for now – other ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I think it would be much better to reduce it to:
  • Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
  • Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
• The {{ill}}s aren't a bad idea, but they should be encouraged rather than required. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super-simple proposal

Let's try this: I propose we remove the navboxes from the "Red links generally are not included" section of WP:REDNOT precisely as Alakzi edited before it was reverted here.

• Support as nominator: My thinking (which is not part of the RfC, which is a simple yes/no on the language above) is that further discussion of if, what, when, how, and how many redlinks should be in a navbox can then go to the talk page of WP:NAVBOX for development of further guidelines. It is clear that there is a rough consensus to allow redlinks, in some fashion, in navboxes, but the devil is in the details, which everyone is arguing about. So let's remove the near-blanket prohibition against them here. That should stop the problem caused by the editor who made mass changes to multiple navboxes due to the current (protected) version of the guideline. Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw, I appreciate your attempt to create a simple solution that would address Dr. Blofeld's concern without creating an overly complex guideline. The problem with your proposal is that it will permit the creation of navboxes that are 90%+ red links, and I cannot support that. My simple alternative would require navboxes (a) to have a mandatory minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles or lists (and excluding redirects and section links), and (b) at least 50% of the links within a navbox be blue links as previously described. It is also important to remind everyone that WP:NAVBOX already requires that a navbox be supported by an existing main article or list on the main subject of the navbox; otherwise, it is subject to deletion at TfD, as you already know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support' - seems entirely sensible. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - navboxes, for the most part, cover the career of the person, subject, etc of the article that they are placed in. WikiP may not have an article for every part of said career but per WP:REDYES redlinks actually encourage content creation. That is not possible if they are removed entirely. Remember WikiP is ever evolving. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—the best of all possible proposals, and I've given my reasons ad nauseum above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Totally agree with the nominator. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Navigational boxes are for navigating between articles. They should not be to-do lists that clutter up articles and distract readers from actual content. The current wording does not prohibit them outright, but they should be included only with good reason. A red link in an article changes the color of existing text, it doesn't add any additional text that a reader would see. A red link in a navigational box adds clutter. - Aoidh (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Solves the immediate problem. Belle (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Solves nothing, neither the remainder of the paragraph in this guideline, nor the practical guidance provided in WP:EXISTING. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the whole point of the RfC: to throw out the anti-redlink portion of WP:EXISTING. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I know, but the RfC is about WP:REDNOT, not about WP:EXISTING. If redlinks for navboxes go unmentioned in the redlinks guideline, whatever leverage to influence the WP:EXISTING essay is gone. And the remaining guidance in the essay is what editors will turn to when assessing whether a redlink is desirable in a navbox or not (while there are no "guideline-level" statements about it left). In fact that strenghtens the applicability of the essay. What I say is that we need a mentioning of redlinks in navboxes at guideline level (whatever minimal that mentioning is). The proposed solution in this second RfC about the same guideline section can be qualified as "going in denial", not something I'd subscribe to. When a change to the guideline is needed, hashing out an appropriate replacement is imho not something that can be avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but how many times can we restart these RfCs? People are going to stop participating. The spirit of the RfC is to allow redlinks that would otherwise be allowed in articles, restricted to relevance to the topic of the box. How much hairsplitting over the wording can we put this spirit through before people give up and allow those with the loudest voices and greatest stamina to gain their preferred "consensus"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Curly Turkey, given the frequency and vehemence of your comments above, and their often personalized nature, perhaps you should consider whether you are one of "those with the loudest voices and greatest stamina" who are determined "to gain their preferred 'consensus'". You need to dial it back a notch or two in this discussion in consideration of WP:CIVIL. Yours is not the only valid opinion being expressed here, and derision, sarcasm and mockery are generally not the best way to gain a consensus with which everyone can live. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll defend Curly Turkey. Because here's my whole experience with this red link thing. There's a number of rigid true believers in "One True Teleology of Navboxes" as somebody said above. I've tried to discuss this on other pages, with a willingness to see the other point of view. You might as well have a nice cup of tea with a buzzsaw. Instead of discussing the thing on any basis of common sense and good faith, they cite policy over and over again, policy that (what a surprise) they've helped develop and rigorously defend. Yep this debate has lapsed into derision, sarcasm and mockery. Any editor who has dealt with these rigid true believers with their loud voices and shocking persistence could have seen that coming. As to Curly Turkey, mainly I see him defending himself. Lockley (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Precisely. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, see what I wrote further up if that is too simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, although we don't removing mention of nav boxes as a way for editors to reinvent the guidelines and claim there was consensus against them. I think there needs to be nothing which makes it clear that it's generally fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It is increasingly apparent from this discussion that a number of the supporters of these proposals want no limits whatsoever on red links in navboxes. I cannot and will not support any revision that permits the creation of navboxes in which red links predominate. If someone would propose a simple standard of a minimum of three blue links and no less than half of the total links included must be blue, we could wrap this discussion with 85 to 90% support of all participants. Instead, we have about a third of the participants asking for exceptions that are already covered by the existing language of the guideline, and another third who are determined to change the language in a way that would support the creation of navboxes with 90+% red links. I'm ready to start my own alternative RfC with my "simple" and easily understood standards and then ping all previous discussion participants to reconsider their support of these misbegotten proposals. It's time to get reasonable, boys and girls, especially when it is obvious that something like half of the support !votes are based on a misunderstanding of the existing guideline and its exceptions, as well as what the proposed revisions will permit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: Remember WP:AGF here, Dirtlawyer. Nothing in this proposal stops WP:NAVBOX guidelines from being discussed to refine issues. The current guideline was originally placed without consensus of affected participants and has been abused by being taken far too literally. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Montanabw, I'm not sure what AGF has got to do with this. There is a small minority who believe that no red links should be permitted in navboxes beyond the present exceptions. There's a larger minority who believe that all red links should be permitted in navboxes with virtually no limitations. And then there is a sizable plurality who believe red links should be allowed in navboxes, but with reasonable limitations. I fall in the latter category. Which are you? If you believe that red links should be permitted in navboxes without limitation, you're right, we're not going to agree. If you can accept reasonable limitations, then there is plenty of room for discussion, alternative proposals, and compromise that could lead to a strong consensus that accommodates all of the concerns of the reasonable parties.

Furthermore, I urge you to read WP:CONSENSUS in its entirety, taking particular notice of the following excerpt from it:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted.

I am very conscious of those MOS edits, made a single editor or supported by a small handful, that purport to have project-wide consensus and enforceability. Such edits have all of the hallmarks of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but their supporters often claim they are the equivalent of scripture. Such is not the case here; the present wording of this guidelines has been in place for all of my six years on-wiki without challenge. Clearly, consensus can change, and that's part of the reason we're having this discussion, but claiming the original wording was not supported by past consensus is a fallacy given the definition of consensus above. Now, let's talk about how we can address the problem of over-zealous enforcement of the guideline without gutting it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a larger minority who believe that all red links should be permitted in navboxes with virtually no limitations.: there is no such minority—even the most extreme of us are opposed to redlinks that (a) would be disallowed elsewhere in the article; or (b) are only tangentially related to the topic of the box. Nobody on this page supports adding specious or capricious redlinks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. I'm slightly mystified by a lot of the anti-red voices in these discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @J Milburn: You do realize that the existing language of the guideline permits red links for subjects that are part of a succession (e.g., all of the presidents of Malawi), or a defined set (e.g., all U.S. presidential elections), right? Most of us do not oppose all red links in navboxes; we oppose navboxes when they are 90%+ red links -- those navboxes do not serve the primary purpose of a navbox, which is to facilitate reader navigation among existing articles. Both of the proposals on the table would permit navboxes that are virtually all red links -- that's just plain goofy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware of what the guideline says. Even if I thought that redlinks should be strictly avoided in navboxes outside of these caveats, which I do not, I would still support this RfC. To say that redlinks are permitted in navboxes in these particular cases - which are a lot of navboxes, though I don't want to guess precise numbers - but then say that "Red links generally are not included in ... navigational boxes" is problematic at best. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @J Milburn: Okay, good. You're an informed consumer; I can appreciate that. How do you feel about whole classes of navboxes, outside these defined exceptions, that are almost entirely red links? Is a navbox with two blue links and 48 red links acceptable to you? If you believe that "red links generally are not included in ... navigational boxes" is problematic at best, can you understand that a navbox that is almost entirely red links is also problematic at best? Is there room for a reasonable compromise here, or do you believe that a 50-item navbox with 48 red links is acceptable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dirtlawyer, that's irrelevant here, that is an issue to be discussed at WP:NAVBOX. Your inquiry, if I may pun a bit, creates a red herring about redlinking. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw, the question may be "irrelevant" to you, but, in fairness, the question was not addressed to you; it was addressed User:J Milburn, with whom I was having a discussion, not an !vote, to sound him out as to the potential for compromise. There is a great deal of confusion here, including many support !voters who clearly do not understand that (a) most cases of red links in navboxes are already covered by the exceptions built into the present guideline, and (b) the proposed changes would permit navboxes to permanently exist with two blue links and 48 red links (my example). I've read the comments by the supporters, and it is pretty clear that many do not fully comprehend either the present problem or the consequences of the proposed cure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Montanabw, where do you get off responding to someone in a disucssion you initiated in a public forum? Whoops—forgot, no sarcasm. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, Curly, you need to watch what you say to your fellow editors, including in your edit summaries. Your edit summary for your comment immediately above reads "no sarcasm, dildo—go back to writing about masturbating introverts". That could get you blocked per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'll say nothing further, because you've just made my point for me. If Montanabw and other long-time editors want to defend such comments, I would be surprised. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dildo who writes about masturbating introverts was me, but thanks for assuming bad faith! Maybe, like TAnthony, you could slap a warning on my talk page to stop personally attacking myself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dirtlawyer1: What are some examples of these navboxes? That is, what is an example of a navbox where a large number of red links would be improper? Alakzi (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alakzi, we delete a handful of mostly red-links navboxes at TfD every week. And they should be. If you want examples, I would be happy to review the last six months of TfDs and get you a list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see a list of such boxes that would have survived if it were not for the wording proposed here for removal. If none of them would have survived anyways, then your comment has no relevance here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We delete navboxes for having too few blue links, but not having too many red links, as a ratio. Basically, I'm struggling to think of any navboxes which wouldn't be exempt from WP:REDLINK, the way that it's currently worded. Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Dirtlawyer, as you know, supporting this RfC does not mean that consistency forces me support the existence of whatever navbox someone cares to dream up. I stand by what I said further up the page: "Yes, there are going to be edge-cases, but these can be dealt with individually- the guidelines should not be standing in the way of redlinks in navboxes." Josh Milburn (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @J Milburn: I, too, believe there should be room for red links in navboxes, but with reasonable limits. That's why I'm having this conversation with you. The question is where the "edge" falls. Would you support a minimum three blue links, with no less than 50% of the total included links being blue? Personally, I think that's extremely reasonable, especially in light of the succession and set exceptions already built into the rule. Is there some appropriate use of red links in navboxes you believe would not be accommodated by such a simple guideline, coupled with the succession and complete set exceptions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as of now, 9 supports, 3 oppose, and more waste of bandwidth. Everyone here understands everyone else's point of view, there is little sense continuing to beat each other over the head about it, and attributing (or, more likely misattributing) motive to each other is not helpful. The point is simple: WP:NAVBOX is the place to develop appropriate redlink guidelines for navboxes. Not here. The current wording is creating problems because some editors seem bent on going through navboxes and removing all redlinks, citing this guideline, and also editing the WP:HAVBOX page, citing this guideline. So toss the guideline and let the people who care most about navboxes thrash out the rest there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Montana, no valid RfC, with project-wide consequences, is conducted and closed in 24 hours, nor should it be closed within 24 days. This is not a small issue, and, quite frankly, I am prepared to start my own alternative RfC, and post wide notice to the many affected WikiProjects, many of which will not be happy with the anything-goes approach that is being proposed here. It is obvious that many participants do not fully appreciate the consequences of these proposals as presently worded. And, no, it's not a "waste of bandwidth" unless you don't believe trying to achieve common ground that accommodates all of the reasonable concerns of the participants is a worthy goal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:REDLINK is not really a style guide, nor is this about a naming issue, so I added "|policy" to the RfC template, to have this posted on the policies & guidelines RfC list, suppose that's OK? As this is a template issue I also added "|tech", if there are no objections to that either.

Re. "some editors ... editing the WP:HAVBOX page, citing this guideline." – The last edits to the WP:NAVBOX page were a month ago (regarded external links in navboxes): afaics nobody edited that page w.r.t. redlinks for the last year or so I checked, nobody defended an update of that guideline on its talk page (there was a question about the implementation of WP:EXISTING handled a few weeks ago), so no the current wording "creating problems" there is completely unfounded.

Re. "little sense continuing..." – if you want an early close to this RfC initiated only today, take it to WP:ANRFC, and let someone else decide (personally, I'd close it on sight for interfering with another RfC that has been running for about a week, continues to have comments and has recently some alternative solutions posted - but can't close it while an involved party - FYI, I'd close it on a "no action", and let the other RfC run its course first). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose red links are nothing but unnecessary clutter for navboxes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the articlepage for a couple of days to stop the edit warring by established editors on what is, I feel, a tangential and trivial subject. I hope, in retrospect, that everyone will calm down and settle this over a nice cup of tea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sorry, force of habit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, you might need to full-protect the page again. Like I knew would happen, soon after full-protection expired, an editor (in this case, Dr. Blofeld) removed the text that is still being debated, acting like WP:Consensus has been established or will be established for the removal. I reverted to the long-standing text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that protecting this page was also discussed on your talk page, as seen here and here. Based on things stated there, I will go ahead and request protection at WP:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no consensus for the previous wording; though its removal might've been premature, I don't see what restoring it would accomplish. Alakzi (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no WP:Consensus for the proposed wording; note my commentary above, in the section now titled #Arbitrary break 2, where I state that the WP:Consensus policy is clear that consensus on Wikipedia is not about a vote (headcount); at least WP:Consensus is not solely supposed to be about that. You noted the following on Ritchie333's talk page: "I don't see how that's the 'wrong' version. Before Richard took that part out in April (without asking), it had been there since at least July 2011. I'd say, page protection appears to have been quite sensible, given the circumstances." You were correct. I see no problem with following WP:STATUSQUO until the WP:RfC is closed. If the WP:RfC closes as "No consensus," and it likely will, then the previous wording should remain unless we gain WP:Consensus that it should be removed or reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and it likely will" *smirk* Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have a lot of experience in how these types of WP:RfCs go. Anyone else who does wouldn't smirk in such an "I will get my way" manner. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ludicrous. The previous wording should not remain if we can't agree on how to deal with red links in navboxes. You noted the following ... The edit warring preceded the RfC. The circumstances have changed. P.S. Per WP:INTERSPERSE, please do not leave a gap between threaded comments; it makes things difficult for the visually impaired. Alakzi (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also stated, "Per WP:STATUSQUO, Rob was correct in reinstating the previous wording. He was incorrect in edit warring, as they all were." Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ludicrous, then so are your words. "The circumstances have changed" only for those who think they have won the dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have; it has become apparent that there exists no consensus for the previous wording. Alakzi (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will see what the closer has to state on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToonLucas22, in my opinion, this is ass backwards and is exactly why I requested full-protection. Then again, I understand how either side feels that they have to get the "right version" back on the page in case the page is full-protected again. Your oppose vote sounds like a support vote. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count 30 Support!votes (28 support, 2 strong support) and 13 Oppose (9 oppose and 4 strong oppose). While the opponents have strong feelings and have expressed those feelings and their rationale strongly, they are in the minority. The supporters have articulated reasons as well, from multiple perspective. I call that a consensus. I may have missed someone's !vote, but I think it's time to close, put in the other version, and move on. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE aside, that would be for an uninvolved administrator to determine. You've made your support of this proposal very clear above, and if you have consensus as you say, let an administrator determine that. Otherwise editors will drag it out into "well it wasn't closed properly" nonsense; let it be done by the book as this is a guideline page and not just an article to avoid any chance of that happening. - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ WP:Edit conflict; Aoidh beat me to commenting, and I added on to what I was going to state... ]: And like I stated above, WP:Consensus is not a headcount; the policy is quite clear on that. SMcCandlish, who helped shape the WP:Consensus policy and weighed in above, can probably go over that aspect better than I can. I've seen various such WP:RfCs and WP:AfDs and the majority vote, even when the majority vote is significant, does not always prevail. Furthermore, some of the support voters and all of the oppose voters don't even like the proposed wording; so I see no WP:Consensus at all for the proposed wording, even if we state that there is WP:Consensus to be more lenient with the WP:Red link guideline with regard to navboxes. Anyway, I want an unbiased, good closer on this case. And given how people usually defer to administrators as having more authority on closes, maybe I JethroBT, who closed the "Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?" WP:RfC, after carefully reading and weighing the comments, would be interested in closing this matter? As for a non-administrative close, maybe Armbrust, who regularly closes WP:RfCs and other "vote" discussions, would be interested in closing this one? Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see what the rush is. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The is no rush—it'll close when it closes. What is clear so far is that a supermajority is opposed to the prohibition against redlinks in navboxes—including a number of the oppose votes—and that evidence that consensus for the status quo ever existed has not been demonstrated. Even a close against the particular wording cannot be interpreted as a consensus for the status quo, as the consensus is clearly not there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence you're asking for is found in the Wikipedia policy for what a consensus is, I'm a little confused on why you're asking for something that is inherently obvious. If there could be said to be a "supermajority" in any discussion, this one isn't it. Those who support the proposal can't even agree on what they are supporting, and those who want red links can't even agree on what type and where. That's not a supermajority, if it even is a majority, it is by the skin of its teeth and largely because you're trying to call this a "prohibition". Red links are already permitted in nav boxes, but they must be included for a reason. What you're describing as the status quo, and what the guideline actually says, are very different things. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear as clear gets is that the vast majority do not support the status quo (by any definiton of the term), and for a very broad variety of reasons. For example, those who have supported here at the very least clearly and unambiguously support Dr. Blofeld's particular use of redlinks in navboxes, which by the current wording of the guideline is not only prohibited, but actively (and disruptively) hunted down. I repeat: "Even a close against the particular wording cannot be interpreted as a consensus for the status quo, as the consensus is clearly not there."—the consensus is that the guideline must change. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that the current wording opposes any red links, when it does not. Therefore your reading of the comments is apparently based off of the assumption that supporting Dr Blofeld's proposal in any form is to oppose the current wording, which is not the case. I think the only thing that is "clear" is that you and I fundamentally disagree on this subject and will not change one another's opinion on this, which is fine. I'm not suggesting that the status quo is some perfect version that needs no change, but what I am saying is that unless an editor's comment specifically says otherwise, to support a change in wording is not necessarily to be against the current wording, especially when the current wording is not diametrically opposed to the proposed change. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that the current wording opposes any red links: You'd wish I were saying that—keep valiantly slaying them strawmen. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"which by the current wording of the guideline is not only prohibited..." If you're going to be uncivil, at least be right. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is those who go around removing Dr. Blofeld's redlinks are in the wrong? Those who have opposed so far have made it clear they want those redlinks gone, and that the current wording of the guideline must be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit them. You appear to be part of the consensus against that interpretation, in which case something must be done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it, are you or are you not saying that the current wording opposes any red links? Why accuse me of "valiantly slaying them strawmen" if what I said you were saying about the prohibition against redlinks in navboxes is exactly what you were saying? - Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quit dodging. You've been given more than enough context for what "prohibition" means here, and I don't believe for a second you actually believe I claimed that no redlinks were ever allowed—so put away the strawman and answer the question. Flyer22, Rob Sinden, et al. are firm in their support of the interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed—are you with them or not? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you go crying "strawman" again, and again when that word couldn't possibly apply. Ironically, however, the strawman you added is "no redlinks were ever allowed"; I never claimed you said that. There is no prohibition against redlinks outside of what is found within this guideline, which isn't much even in the context you're referring to, which brings me back full circle to what I originally said: the proposal is not diametrically opposed to the current wording, so to claim that a vague support for the proposal shows "the vast majority do not support the status quo (by any definiton of the term)" is a spurious claim, at best, since it shows no such thing.

As to the marginally-related question you're claiming I'm "dodging" because I wanted clarification on a question you ironically refused to answer (and still haven't) before I answered you, I see a few problems with your question. First, this "are you with them or not" is a very WP:BATTLEGROUND approach; I am neither with them or not. This does not suggest that redlinks are not permitted. Rob Sinden's oppose comment, for example, doesn't seem to suggest that redlinks "must not be allowed" the way you're inferring either, so his comment in the diff I linked, as written, yes I agree with it. I don't see any "interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed" there, however, so if there was further elaboration in another diff then I can't speak on that because I haven't seen it. Red links in nav boxes should be the exception, not the norm, and they should be included with reason. "Red links generally are not included...in navigational boxes" does not mean "Red links are not included...in navigational boxes". - Aoidh (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the strawman you added is "no redlinks were ever allowed": Your exact words: "are you or are you not saying that the current wording opposes any red links?" Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I truly have no idea how you managed to get that first quote out of "my exact words", because those are two completely different sentences. - Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted clarification on a question you ironically refused to answer: I answered it. You're pretending I didn't.

I don't see any "interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed" : so this whole discussion is just a figment of everyone's imagination! Dr. Blofeld, could you kindly withdraw this RfC? You're obviously only here to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've made it clear you're only here to derail the discussion. I'll leave it to the closer to puzzle their way through your non sequiturs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely asking, because if this is the answer you're referring to, it was worded very vaguely. However, if by that comment you mean that no, the current status quo does not oppose the use of any redlinks then your original comment in the discussion doesn't really apply since most of the "support" comments in the discussion above make no mention of the current wording, only the proposed wording. Therefore a close against the proposal has nothing to do with the current wording as the current wording is only a gradual step away from the proposal, it's not in opposition to it. If, however, you believe the current wording forbids any use of red links, that is a different matter entirely, which you should probably make clear if that's the case, as the closer would then have to read your original comment here in that context, where it would make more sense. If you do reply, I suspect it will be to accuse me of yet some other nonsense instead of clarifying what you meant, but hopefully you'll prove me wrong in that regard. - Aoidh (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substance to your comment—you're desperately trying to paint my "prohibition" comments as having claimed "the current wording forbids any use of red links", which the context makes abundantly clear was never the intention. You're hoping to fill this page with gibberish to obscure that context so you can discredit your recontextualized strawman version of my comments, just as with your first response to me where you simply pretended the word "specifically" wasn't there, even after having quoted it. The context is the removal of Dr. Blofeld's redlinks in light of the current wording of the guideline—if you insist on recontextualizing the argument, then you can only be arguing in bad faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's bad faith you're accusing me of. This wheel of vapid accusations is tiresome, and my mistake was giving you fodder to water down this discussion with your patently nonsenical accusations. You are welcome to put your money where your mouth is and report me to WP:ANI for my bad faith, or any other venue of your choice if you feel another would be more appropriate. I have no doubt you will not, however, because you know just as well as I do that your characterization of me rings hollow, and the lack of an WP:ANI report about me is proof of that. I have made my point about your view of the current wording. That was my point, full stop. You have made it abundantly clear that you are more interested in arguing than discussing, in accusations than clarifications. That's fine, and you're welcome to the last word, because we have both made our points, such as they are. - Aoidh (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...but sometimes it's a nice humor break. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. Flyer22 pinged me here suggesting that I might be able to help close and evaluate consensus for this extensive discussion once folks have had a chance to weigh in. I'd be willing to do that, though if there are serious objections, I'd be happy to step away. The discussion seems pretty active at this time, so I'm not planning on closing until things have settled down. A 30-day period might be in order here. I also want to note that there's about 30,000+ words of reading as of this posting, and while it's not our longest RfC by any means, it will take a considerable amount of time for me to do a thorough assessment. I also want to encourage everyone to avoid arguing about what they think consensus is, resist making accusations about other editors (e.g. "did you read what I wrote" does not promote consensus-building and effectively shuts down discussion), and instead focus on articulating/rebutting arguments about the proposals based on relevant policies and guidelines. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it's very clear that there is consensus to change the guidelines here. Somebody please close this and make the changes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]