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

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

I see. The garmine ^(talk) 04:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No they were not appropriate, There was no indication either one of those people were nootable. The only place they linked to was the hatnote in that article. ~ GB fan 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. There was only the one person there, but there would be (I'm guessing) that one would be redirects. The player in question played for Hull and Gloucester, so notability would be inherent with RUN and RLN and it would be very conceivable that someone may wish to create the article, and could be done from this. I'm happy to be wrong, but I couldn't see anything cast-iron in the main page that demanded the removal of red-links.Fleets (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very badly written hatnote then as there were two distinct articles linked to, Richard Goddard (rugby) and Dicky Goddard, in two separate sentences. There would be no reason to think that the two were the same person. There isn't anything that demands removal of the hatnote. There also isn't anything that demands the hatnote exists. So we need to evaluate it based on its usefulness. There was nothing to help anyone figure out who this was talking about. Both links only led back to that hatnote. It wasn't useful. ~ GB fan 10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said is not correct there is a portion of this guideline that says the hatnote should not be there. Look at the Dealing with existing red links section. The second from the bottom bullet says: "Links in any of the various {{About}} ... notes, ... are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed." ~ GB fan 10:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while I was writing this, it has been fixed and the article written. ~ GB fan 10:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End result is a positive one, with a well written article now in place, so I'm both lucid and elucidated.Fleets (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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