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]

Your edit seems fine to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After re-visiting the guideline of WP:REDNOT, I noticed that the wording had been altered/removed, and thus I came across this discussion. I was the editor mentioned in the first post of this discussion, with this edit of mine at Dunkirk (2017 film), which was reverted with this edit by Erik. It seems that the edit to REDNOT has been executed based on their dislike for the wording, after the editor has partaken in a serious edit-war at "Dunkirk (2017 film)", concerning the removal of redlinks (their list of edits/reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I recommend that the edits to REDNOT and "Dunkirk (2017 film)" be reverted and a proper discussion started concerning the validity of the edit to REDNOT; if both do not happen, then I recommend and would be more than happy to open an RFC to gain the thoughts of the editing community. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously. WP:REDNOT exists for WP:BLP-reasons. It doesn't exactly "contradict" WP:REDYES. WP:REDYES doesn't apply to personal names, per WP:REDNOT. As WP:REDNOT says not to red-link personal names, a personal name is not WP:REDYES-compliant with which to begin. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDYES says, "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain that the red link is a valid title of a page, and that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." It tells me that when I create a red link for a person, I need to make sure that it will be a valid article title for the person and that it will likely be a notable person. How does WP:REDNOT not contradict that? Joefromrandb. If this is real, then we need to state it more upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going deeper in the archives (I only went back to Archive 3), I see a lot of back-and-forth about the purpose of using it, but I don't see a solid consensus. Was there an RfC on this matter? Not being able to add red links for persons at all seems to contradict the key goal of the guideline, to help Wikipedia grow. I can see where it can be problematic, but where I was attempting to keep red links at Dunkirk (2017 film) for unequivocally billed actors. I created an article for one person as a result and find it likely that articles can be created for other persons. I find it completely bizarre that this is not allowed at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not tell you that at all. You're making that up. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb, so you're saying red links can be added for persons? Because I was recently reverted with that passage being cited in unconditionally removing red links for persons. If it is conditional, then we need to be clear about that, otherwise this guideline is being abused. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are not to be created for people, full stop. This is due to WP:BLP-concerns, and has been discussed at length in the past. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]