THC Science

RfC: Red links for persons

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to allow red links for persons. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should red links for persons be allowed on Wikipedia? If no, why not? If yes, what conditions, if any, should be considered? WP:REDNOT's fourth paragraph says, "A red link to a person's name should be avoided," but WP:REDLINK's nutshell template and lead section, as well as WP:LINK#Red links, do not mention this exception. While there have been past discussions, differing interpretations (e.g., the exception being conditional or unconditional) warrant a formal determination. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Allow redlinks This does not "warrant a formal determination"; I prefer to leave the current wording status quo ante so application can differ page to page. Please handle your dispute on the page in question. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks I also prefer the less restrictive ambiguity expressed above. Many situations where a red link occurs is as a place holder for a notable subject (in this case, people), which will be an arguable situation. The red link in an appropriate situation serves as an invitation for an article to be created, possibly by someone with the appropriate knowledge. It then automatically links to the correct spelling, disambiguation format etc etc in potentially multiple appropriate articles. Trackinfo (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow redlinks If the person is not notable, a redlink is misleading as it implies that an article should be created. If a person is notable, creating a stub article takes almost no effort, and it ensures that an article about a different person isn't created under that name potentially creating BLP issues (as described at WP:REDNOT). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow redlinks As Ahecht states above, if a person is notable a page can be created easily enough. The redlink in a page for a notable person is likely to open up Pandora's box/POV forks for the often fierce debates about whether a person is notable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this isn't applicable to all red links, so I take these comments with a grain of salt. Stubs, regardless of their actual notability, are deleted on "undemonstrated" notability grounds all the time. The point of this guideline is to encourage articles where they should be created but someone is unwilling to do the basic (and good work) of finding and subsequently using reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow red links. Perhaps there should be a soft suggestion to "avoid" them while also a second suggestion to "pre-emptively disambiguate these red links", but certainly there shouldn't be either a blanket ban nor a strong "thou should not use these". The "pre-emptive disambiguate" can avoid the issue of murderers crossing streams with politicians. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow redlinks - In times past when wikipedia was small, indeed redlinks as an invitation was a good idea, because there was so many articles missing. Now other issues come into play. In particular, I agree that for a deserving person the article will be created anyway, whereas redlinked nonnotables is a headache. One might say let's allow redlinks for notables, but then we run into notability quarrels about redlinks which actually better be handled at AfDs rather than about hypothetical possibilities. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks While redlinks should generally be avoided, there are many pages where a redlink remains an invitation to create an article. This is especially true with lists of people who may be notable (based on a SNG), but have not seen an article correctly. In some lists, the recommendation is to only list those members who are notable, so the redlink can be a bridge. (A specific example are the lists of members of a legislative assembly, where some, but not all, members have pages, but others do not). --Enos733 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The example above is for me a reason to support disallow. Per WP:NPOL not all legislative assembly members of all kinds of assemblies automatically qualify. That, in a given list, some have a page may be due to these people meeting general notability rather than this specific notability guideline. Allowing to redlink the non-notable member of such an assembly would in my view raise exactly the problems I warned about before. Arnoutf (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this. What kind of legislative assembly members are not covered by NPOL? They would have to be sub-sub-national, and I don't know of many of those. Frickeg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a template, which, I believe, is an appropriate use of redlinks - Template:Oklahoma_State_Senators. The current community consensus is that all members of a sub-national legislature receive the presumption of notability. Within the Oklahoma State Senate, community members have only created articles about 16 of the 44 members. A redlink helps in the creation of articles and provides a way to connect articles together. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow redlinks in article prose, disallow in lists (including in-article lists). This seems to come closest to describing current practice. I am fully confident that WP:NPP can keep WP free of BLP articles that should not be part of the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. There are plenty of cases where someone is notable but an article is not yet created, and it is frankly better to encourage people to create an actual article rather than someone putting together a fairly useless stub. Redlinks are also one of the best ways of encouraging new editors to contribute - I know I was first prompted to create an article by encountering a redlink, and I strongly suspect I am not alone. Additionally, people above mention that creating a stub takes "almost no effort". Creating one stub might be fairly simple, but for some lists, where a SNG guarantees notability, it may be a matter of creating dozens or even hundreds of stubs. I do not see a problem here that needs addressing - if people are not notable they should not be linked at all, and if they are a redlink is encouraging article creation. Frickeg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. This is one of the most singly catastrophic proposals I've seen on this project: the marker that an article on a notable person needs creation is absolutely critical for content development, especially in any form of underrepresented area. If we wreck this because a couple of people don't like the look of redlinks, we may as well give up on expanding our content relating to people and go home. We know from long experience that they are not just "created anyway" - this proposal would directly and actively discourage the creation of articles on unequivocally notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks: The stupidest proposal I've seen in a while, quite frankly. We don't need to go overboard with them, sure (if someone's obviously NN, having a redlink is pointless), but to ban them misses the forest for the trees, to be nice. Wizardman 23:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. The problem described (that they may refer to multiple people by the same name and that a newly created article may end up having bad incoming links) is better fixed by, when you create a new article, checking the incoming links to make sure they're not bad. Doesn't everyone already do that? Maybe checking this should be part of NPP. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. Wizardman (talk · contribs) and The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) say it quite well. Furthermore, having redlinked names makes it far, far easier to integrate new articles into the encyclopedia once they have been created. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks This is a foundational piece of WP. It identifies that a subject does not have an article, and encourages editors to create it. Not every redlink is going to be notable when properly examined, but that is in the nature of WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks Unless and until the page Wikipedia shows when a reader clicks on a redlink for "John Smith" is changed to invite the reader to search Google for people named "John Smith"—in which case a redlink for a person would create a potential BLP problem—I don't see what the problem is. Why would we treat redlinks for people differently than we do redlinks for any other subject? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow redlinks For the same reasons as given above; I've nothing to add to them. -- Alex^TW 03:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks for all the reasons given above but also to highlight the need to write articles about notable people who already have biographies in other language versions of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks (a) where the person linked may plausibly be the subject of a future article within a reasonable time; (b) where there's more than one article linking to that person (see MOS:DABRED). Remove single red links to persons with no prospect of notability. — Stanning (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks When one is creating an article, typically one comes across multiple other persons who are indeed also notable. Not only do redlinks allow for interconnections and integration within the encyclopedia they provide context for the person and associates being written about. It is absolutely a time sink to have to search for each person who might have been involved with a subject and link them when a new article is created. Far better to insert a redlink at the time of creation to other notables, so that when an article is written, links become active. As for the complaint that the redlink might point to the wrong person, if one styles the name properly when a redlink is created, that is unlikely to happen. I cannot speak for any one else, but when writing an article, I verify the names of others to see if they already have an article or not. If they do not, a quick Google search will advise what is the most likely title, the same way one would search to name any other article. SusunW (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks per @SusunW and Ipigott:. This has my strongest support. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks as an article creator, I often uncover multiple notable people during my writing. Adding redlinks to these articles is an invitation to others to work on these notable people or it allows active links to exist immediately after I work on their articles. I agree wholeheartedly with SusunW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks per all of the reasons above. The existing guidelines for redlinks (essentially, can potentially become an article) are more than adequate. This is an article by article process. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks - The question seems to be whether there should be an exception to standard operating procedure for names of people. Honestly, I hadn't even come across this exception before. The objection that most people seem to have is an objection to redlinks in general, it seems. I wouldn't oppose tweaking the rules for all redlinks (not outright forbidding them, of course), but at this point I see no reason to treat names differently. Of course, guidelines like LISTPEOPLE/ALUMNI still apply -- there are many, many instances when a linked name should be supported by sources if there's no article. But that's besides the point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. The section WP:REDNOT has been very poorly thought out to the point of being irrational. How long has it been in this state? I came here to explain why redlinks can be positively beneficial when multiple people exist with the same name, only to find SusunW got here before me. Thincat (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. The WP:REDNOT 4th paragraph dates to a 2011 insertion. One lone individual decided to put that in, with a talk page notification that it had been done. There does not seem to have been a pre-insertion consensus. Perhaps it's time to use the consensus here to either remove that completely, or reword it conditionally. Whatever reason the editor had for inserting it, we are now 6 years beyond that. Redlinks on individual names are very helpful, especially in situations where projects are trying to improve coverage on a given demographic. The other thing is ... does anybody really believe that nobody, especially drive-by IPs, is inserting redlinks for persons? Is there some bot intended to make a massive regular sweep through Wikipedia to remove redlinks for persons? Projects depends on those redlinks. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks for persons as well as for any other subject. Remove the phrase A red link to a person's name should be avoided from WP:REDNO as it contradicts this. Perhaps replace it with something like Add red links to the name of a living person only with care, when it will not imply an unsourced negative conclusion, or be likely to lead to confusion if the article is created. But this blanket ban is simply unjustified. Nor does it follow actual practice. Red links can lead to creation of valid articles on people as on any other subject, and in most cases carry no implication contrary to WP:BLP or any othe p[olicy or guideline. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks, for all the good reasons above. Modify WP:LISTPEOPLE, and particularly {{Editnotice for lists of people}} (which takes a guideline and turns it into law), accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks. This strikes me as a particularly silly example of instruction creep and the examples cited as reasons why are unconvincing. I'd rather have less restrictive guidance and allow editors to use their judgement. That's why we have humans working on this project. I admit I'm here because someone reverted me citing that section of REDNOT and I was startled by its existence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow redlinks. I could see changing it to something like, "Persons should not be redlinked unless there is a reasonable expectation that the subject is independently notable..." But the problem is that is open to interpretation, and we'll have a bunch of IP editors that will go back to redlinking every name of every person who's ever appeared in even one episode of a TV series sometime, etc. At the least, the onus should be on the editor who adds the redlink to justify why a redlink should remain – otherwise this will be "open season" to create a "sea of red" in many articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been common practice for the entire history of the project to red link notable biographical subjects without articles, and yet we don't have a problem with IP editors redlinking every name of every person who's ever appeared in even one episode of a TV series sometime (at least without them uncontroversially being reverted). It goes without saying that - as for every other redlinked subject, in all the millions of redlinks (including biographical subjects) - it does need to be a notable subject. I find it really strange that some "disallow" voters are talking about this as if it's a hypothetical which might trigger off tsunamis of non-notable redlinks instead of...what is already done virtually everywhere on the project without serious issue (and certainly without any of these issues). The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Try watching one of the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon TV series articles sometime, and you'll see how fast IP editors will start adding redlinks for subjects that are currently below the notability guidelines (i.e. child actors in the first roles), or who are even just non-notable guest actors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - And this happens because IPs, understandably, don't understand our notability standards, something which won't change regardless of this discussion. You're just as free to remove them now (because they're non-notable!) as you would be if redlinks were disallowed - and you wouldn't have the absolutely catastrophic damage to content development on nearly every other topic of coverage that would occur in that case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks Others have made the case eloquently. Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow redlinks for notable individuals. I can see the need to be careful around potential BLP issues, but that hardly seems to be a problem unique to the issue of redlinks. I see no compelling reason to have different guidelines for people than for any other topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This matter came up for me because Dunkirk (2017 film) had three actors among those billed that did not have Wikipedia articles, including the one playing the protagonist, Fionn Whitehead. Based on the goal of the red-link guideline, their names were red-linked since simple search engine tests showed secondary sources, especially for Whitehead. However, these were de-linked without WP:REDNOT being cited, so it seemed more for aesthetic reasons. I recently went ahead and created an article, but I was surprised to hear the claim that red links for persons were not permitted. Until very recently, WP:REDYES mentioned people and WP:BIO until it was removed. So before this removal, this passage and the WP:REDNOT passage seemed to conflict. It would help to establish how Wikipedia should approach red links for persons and to also ensure that the exception is indicated on a high level and not be tucked away. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, this guideline was referenced to remove red links from Dunkirk in their entirety, despite search engine tests showing that articles can be created. This guideline's lack of clarity has led to potential abuse, and it needs to be clearer to all of us in what cases red links are permitted and what they are not. I suggest a more conditional section similar to WP:ELMAYBE where conditions for red-linking a person can be explained. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht, Arnoutf, isn't the so-called ease of creating a stub a reason not to have red links at all? And why should the BLP concern make for an unconditional ban? In the case of Fionn Whitehead, the argument seems to be that he should never have been red-linked even though there was ample coverage (which was eventually used by me) and no confusion with anyone else? I can understand applying conditions, but a complete ban seems unwarranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you are right. But that would assume saintly editors all around. There are simply a lot of editors out there looking for reasons and allies to create articles on "my daddy" who is the most notable person in the world (to me). That is why notability of persons and BLP are among the strictest policies we have. That is why so much discussion about notability of people is ongoing. Anything to support inclusion of non-notable persons would interfere with the way these debates are formed, and allowing redlinked people (even non notable) in articles would invite editors (including novice editors) to patch together a stub on these non-notable people. That would put even more pressure on editors tracking non-notable stubs. In short it is mainly for pragmatic reasons I support to disallow these links as allowing them would create many many more debates on notability of people. That is, in my view disallowing these red-links is the lesser of the two evils Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ease of creating articles and the urge to turn a list of red links blue is at the core of what resulted in the massive User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. One editor created thousands of articles, which I thought was a positive step in the right direction. But his work was so sloppy, others disagreed. The net result was thousands of man hours spent reviewing his work and ultimately, irresponsibly, ~16,000 articles were deleted. From my sampling of the articles, the subjects were notable (many Olympic non-medalists and world class athletes) and the stubs were valid. Others disagreed. Now future editors will meet with a notice that the article has previously been deleted. How many will get scared off? We have taken an additional step to HINDER the creation of articles, turned thousands of blue links red all because one editor tried too hard to create these simple stubs you refer to.Trackinfo (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I'm noting not much discussion and a lot of WP:VOTING... -- Alex^TW 04:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone arguing that this is a terrible proposal has outlined a vast range of reasons why this is. You stated "For the same reasons as given above; I've nothing to add to them" - the single most contentless vote in the entire discussion. Funny man. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. Just for you, us Aussies clearly have a sense of humour.

-- Alex^TW 04:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see that there is much to discuss. I have been working on a collaborative GA this month in which there have been added redlinks and interlanguage links to other WP pages for ten other notables. As we are still working on the article, there may be more before we are done. The point is, five of those redlinks have now converted to C class articles and one of them is a start class article. It isn't remotely "easy" to create well-documented, comprehensive articles. Single lines stubs are not helpful in providing much information, and a Google search would supply that. On the other hand, a comprehensive article gives context. Far easier to integrate other notables into the encyclopedia from an "anchor" article, which has already evaluated during its creation which associates are likely to also be notable. I see no net gain at all from prohibiting redlinks and a lot of detrimental hindrance for creation and integration. SusunW (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Yes, there can be a problem when a red link turns blue when the "wrong" article is created - a redlink for an actor in a film cast list, an article created for a dead politician of the same name, etc. Rather than avoiding redlinks for personal names (as suggested at WP:REDNOT), let's look at a different approach - a bot or similar.

It would be useful if editors creating articles or redirects which are already red links got a talk page message on the lines of: "Thank you for creating the article Xxx. It has been linked to by what were previously red links in the articles listed below, helping readers to use the encyclopedia. [And that list would preferably distinguish those cases where the link was in a template, rather than an individual link in the article]. If any of these do not seem to be intended to link to this article, please amend the incoming links - for more info on how to do this please click "HELP". If you cannot resolve these yourself please click "HERE" to add this to a list of articles needing attention."

And then have a maintenance template and category for "Articles with possibly incorrect incoming links", which a species of WikiGnome will then delight in sorting out by disambiguating incoming links, or perhaps moving the new article to a disambiguated title, as appropriate. A page at "HELP" would give advice on how to do this for willing but inexperienced editors.

The idea being that a new or lazy editor could click "HERE" to mark the article as needing help from someone else, while other editors could skim the list, notice the links which were from unlikely subject areas, and go and fix them. It wouldn't catch every instance, but it would reduce the number of links to completely wrong people. PamD 23:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resulting edit

Please see this for the change made to the guideline as a result of the above RfC. I really have only removed one sentence and have placed the rest of the content outside WP:REDNOT. The new subsection "Linking persons" affirms the above consensus, and I kept most of the content after it to use as advice instead. The sentence about checking links, I put at the end of the "When to create red links" subsection as a final step. We can expand the advice about red links for persons as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, regarding the edit you made, isn't it best to keep the "Frequently, a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name." wording?

I've seen this (what that sentence states) happen a lot, which is one of my issues with red links. I was unaware of the RfC above; I wasn't paying much attention to discussion on this page, but I think I would have voted against allowing red links, for precisely the reasons the page stated. I too often see red links used to indicate that an article should be created when it's the case that an article should not be created, but the guideline does note that red links should not be created for topics that are unlikely to sustain an article (mainly per WP:Notable concerns). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I removed it because it was used as a reason not to create a red link. We could reinsert and rewrite that to be more advisory language, perhaps? Like "keep in mind..."? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, yeah, I didn't mean that it should be re-added as a reason not to create a red link; I'm simply stating that the sentence by itself, as separate from the text it used to be connected to, notes a valid matter. I would prefer that it is blended in with the "Linking persons" section you created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this, this and this change to the section. Are you okay with the changes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on red links in infoboxes

Regarding MOS:INFOBOX, there is an RfC about red links in infoboxes. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update the guideline

This edit is the third time in the last twelve hours that the editor has decided to add red links and links to DABs. It's my understanding that the current feeling is that red links should be created if there's a possibility of the link becoming a blue link. Am I wrong? We want to avoid a sea of blue, why don't we want to avoid a sea of red as well? WP:REDNOT needs to be made more prominent and the intro should be clear about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: please try to communicate with the other editor on the article talk page (use {{ping}}, and explain your reasons for rejecting the other editor's changes). A change of guideline is not a substitute for communication. WP:CONSENSUS is the applicable policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little unclear what WP:REDNOT had to do with the referenced edit. That edit did not involve nav template, a see also section or similar. Agathoclea (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The communication was all on my talk page. Check the editor's edit history.

REDNOT - did you see the sea of red? "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions." is the first line in REDNOT. The article is for a project that was created more than a decade ago. If its participants have not made a name for themselves yet, they likely won't now.

CONSENSUS is not the applicable policy as that article has low volume and we're not going to get more than we two editors.

Don't talk down to me @Francis Schonken:. I know how to use Wikipedia. What needs to happen is greater prioritization of REDNOT in the opening part of the guideline. Rather than have the second sentence start, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." I suggest "It is not useful to create a red link when editing articles unless it is clear that the subject is notable and verifiable" or something similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I have read the exchange on your talkpage, and it translates to me as that the other editor cannot use the guideline as the basis for his edits because your feel the guideline is outdated, is that right? Agathoclea (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The editor is selectively reading the guideline to add a sea of red to the article. Creating links to subjects that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia. This is not a CONSENSUS issue.

The guideline is fine as a whole, but we need to emphasize REDNOT more. I have had more than one editor inform me that they will continue to add red links and quote the opening paragraph here or allude to them as a "very useful tool". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During my commute I realized that unless you have a tool or some JavaScript to enable the colourization of links, all links look the same to you. The following are all red links:

Nirva Dorsaint as Mama Mary
Matt Hammit of Sanctus Real as blind cripple
Donnie Lewis as Jairus' wife
Bob Farrell as Governor Pilate
John Grey as Preacher Rabbi at the wedding
Nathaniel Lee as Janitor Angel
Todd Collins – percussion
Jason Eskridge – background vocals
Kim Fleming – choir
Brad Ford – vocals, assistant executive producer
Robert Gay – children's chorus
Rachel Goldstein – choir
Kirk "Jelly Roll" Johnson – harmonica
Tony Lucido – bass guitar
Rick May – drums
Antonio Phelon – choir, background vocals
John Ray – choir
Becky Robertson – children's chorus
Joanna Robertson – children's chorus
Thomas Romines – choir
Pete Stewart – acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, piano, electric piano (all of these links are common terms and against WP:OVERLINK and the MoS for albums)
Greg Thomas – choir
Patti Thomas – choir
Michelle Valentine – choir
Paul Wright III
Carl Marsh – Fairlight, string arrangement
Bethany Newman – art director, design
Marcelo Pennell – audio engineer
Carter Robertson – choir director
Dan Shike – mastering

Eddie DeGarmo is the only one that has a reasonable change of becoming a blue link as a member of a notable band, a solo artist with two albums and the executive or a major Christian record label, yet, no red link! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that relates to this issue. The lede of the guideline says, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. ... Articles should not have red links to images, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not a celebrity in his or her own right, and thus lacks notability." And the REDYES section of the guideline 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." (Emphasis added.) Thus my question has two parts:

The present tense of "is" suggests to me that redlinks should only be created if the person or subject is notable and verifiable at the time the redlink is created. Or to say it in a different way, a redlink should only be added if the person or subject could at the time the redlink is added have an article written about them, but it just hasn't been written yet.
If that is correct, does the "carries the responsibility" line imply that if a redlink is challenged for not being about a currently notable person that the creator of the redlink has the obligation to demonstrate that the person or subject is notable by at least providing two reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia sufficient to at least satisfy GNG?

That seems to be a fair reading of the guideline to me since, first, otherwise who or what could be a proper redlink would often be the subject of rank speculation and, second, those who create redlinks would have a responsibility important enough to mention in the guideline but not important enough to be enforced, but I don't know if it is correct or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's what it says, but I think it's too soft. Too many people Wikilawyer their way into creating massive amounts of redlinks that will never become articles based on a cursory reading of the guideline, and the example here is a case-in-point. For instance, in a sports article for a tier-one professional league. It's very reasonable to create a redlink to a player name on the roster as the notability guidelines are generally vague enough to suggest that if the player actually steps onto the playing surface for a league event, that makes them notable. However, in the case of an album, like this, not all of the performers are currently notable and will likely never be notable. So, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon" is sending the wrong message. "Soon" is not clearly defined (is it in the next day, week, month, year, decade?) and it will lead to edit wars. Stating the negative up-front is more clear, and sets the groundwork for a follow-up sentence that grants permission. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cursory reading of guidelines would cause you to miss the entire lead section that states "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic" . Also please don't attack me again. Implying that I am someone who is wiki-lawyering is derogatory.speednat (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it helps in this sea of red, less time arguing that all those red links need to be deleted and more time researching (about 10 seconds) and the first two people are notable. Nirva Dorsaint and Donnie Lewis

Sorry. Please read what I wrote again. I did not imply, or least did not mean to imply that you were wikilawyering. I meant to state that other editors have used this MoS to engage in wikilawyering. This is why the opening paragraph needs to change to be more forceful in stating that red links should not be created if the articles are not likely to be created and retained on Wikipedia.

For the record, less time would need to be spent discussing changing the guideline if editors would simply read and understand the whole guideline rather than taking parts they like and forcing them on people. That was a direct attack on you, or at least a reference to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on your talk page and not waste everyone's time with your nonsense.speednat (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read my posts or just scan them in a cursory manner. The guideline actually states as I stated above once and on your page once, In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic" Let me reiterate a section of that quote DO NOT REMOVE RED LINKS unless YOU are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject" Pretty clear to me but then again, if I were you I would be ignoring that section also. I am not forcing anything on you, you are free to not revert my edits, you are free to not read my edits.Do you think I am that dense that you could say well I did't say you were a wiki-lawyer I was referring to other people. I am the person that you are discussing and yet when you imply someone is a wiki-lawyer it is everyone else but me. Your deletion, sorry archiving, of our discussion is a blatant signal that you have no desire to compromise or discuss. I would have left this on your talk page but you deleted it so for continuity sake here is my final installment.speednat (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I read them fully, I respond to them fully. I am fully certain that they should not exist.

Now your turn. Have you read WP:REDNOT where it says, "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia"? I don't think you have because the whole discussion is because you thinkt that the subjects are likely to have articles created. That was my first question to you: "Template:Diff:User talk:Walter Görlitz" I have a Todd Collins album and know his work. He will never be notable enough to merit an article unless the notability guidelines change. Jason Eskridge, and the rest of the choir may have been in bands at the time or have been studio musicians. They're not going to merit albums. Every single member of the children's choir was a child at the time and was likely dragged into the session because their parent was working on the project or were asked to perform. They will likely never be notable. I will make exceptions for three of the redlinks: Bob Farrell is part of a husband and wife duo, and there might be enough for an article about the duo with a brief discussion about Mr. Farrell, but none has been created and it likely won't be. Carl Marsh is an arranger in Nashville, but he hasn't gained enough GNG to merit an article of his own. Greg Thomas, who was a CCM artist in the 80s, but he wasn't a top-selling artist and I don't think I could find any info on the subject if I dug. So yeah, I understand the topic extremely well and by your own admission, you don't. So why do you think any of the other twenty-five remaining entries meet WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO to merit an article a decade after their involvement in this project? Oh yeah, because you like trying to fill-in redlinks in articles even if creating those redlinks goes against the guideline and you've never thought to create those redlinks in your user space rather than in main space. I expect you'll ignore answering the question. Prove me wrong. If you don't answer though, I won't bother answering any of your self-aggrandizing attempts to embarrass me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal re plausibility of red links

The term "plausible" is used throughout the guideline to discuss red links which should be retained. That creates an ambiguity demonstrated by Speednat, above. I propose to add a footnote to each of those uses which would read as follows and which I believe clarifies the actual current meaning of the policy:

Plausibility does not exist unless the subject of the red link is at least notable and verifiable at the time the link is added and at all times afterwards. If challenged, the burden of demonstrating notability and verifiability is on the editor attempting to add or retain a red link.

The exact edit can be seen here. Depending on initial response, I reserve the right to change this discussion into a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would agree to this addition by TransporterMan. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, it needs to be changed one way or the other. However, would it not discourage red-links if the creating editor would have to deal with them, which might mean they just don't add any red-links which I think is a bad idea, because red-links are a great way to get the articles created. Bottom line is I don't care either way other than how it will affect the wiki growth. When I get on a kick I just create pages based on red-links but then there are times that I don't want to be bothered as I am focused.speednat (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I felt that either way works as long as the guideline isn't saying two different things like now; And me being the peacemaker and all....however upon further thought, I would rather go through a group of red-links and deal with removing those that are not necessary rather than reviewing articles to add links in for articles that were created later. - speednat (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, in principle. I'd sooner see a statement saying do not create red links first and a note stating that we should only add redlinks if they are likely to be notable and verifiable, rather than say remove if they're not. We need to discourage the frivolous creation of red links as was done by Speednat in the example provided. Also, red links are not a great way to get articles created. AfC is a great way to get articles created. Manually creating articles is a great way to get articles created. Adding red links pisses editors off when they click on something and there's nothing there. Creating red links encourages the creation of non-noatble articles that waste editors' time to curate and take through deletion processes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you citing any source on that or just pulling it out of the air. My source is the MOS:redlink, but I guess that was probably made up. I, for one and I know I am far from the only one to create from redlinks. The system is set up well for the no page there issue. If the link is red ---it doesn't exist, blue --- it does. Not too hard, and again if Wikipedia is such a waste of your time, why do it? Creating non-notable articles encourages the creation of non-notable articles. speednat (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Disagree: I totally disagree with the statements made by Walter Görlitz. AfC is not a tool designed to create articles on notable subjects, but instead, is a platform designed to only allow creation of articles which might withstand a challenge at AfD. Not remotely the same thing as creating articles through community expansion, utilizing the concept of AGF and collaboration to establish that articles are not only notable but based on verifiable information. Redlinks are and should be added when notability has been verified but an article has not yet been created. There are entire WikiProjects built upon creating content from redlists. They do result in the creation of articles on notable subjects.[1], [2], [3] I am not opposed to adding the above text IF there is also a change to the statement not to remove red links that in essence requires gaining consensus or allowing the person who added the red link to "demonstrate notability and verifiability". At this point, the rewording is placing the onus for adding a redlink on the creator, but allowing the person who wishes to delete a redlink free will to act based upon their own initiative. In other words, "Do not remove red links unless you have gained a consensus through discussion that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". SusunW (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that there are individuals who create article from redlinksI have seen them keep those redlinks on their user pages or project pages. I have not seen a successful group create articles from main space. And AfC is a great place, but you're right, not the only and not the best place for creating articles. I also agree that with your suggestion that the person who added a red link should demonstrate notability and verifiability. Having been active in AfDs I can say that most editors don't have the first clue about that there and it will be a problem here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - At very least, it's a legacy thing. The idea of the redlink [in mainspace] is a pretty key part of Wikipedia's identity and history, and a huge amount of this encyclopedia (pre-2007, at any rate) was created by following redlinks from the few articles that existed. I'd like to suggest not going down this path of challenging the usefulness of redlinks in general, as it will draw a lot more pushback than this very actionable proposal above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure. Baby steps. I can go with this for the next five years or so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking there was a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I am opposed to the removal of redlinks without discussion and consensus. Simply because one doesn't like redlinks or isn't willing to do WP:BEFORE should not be a pass to indiscriminately remove redlinks created in good faith on notable subjects. SusunW (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my "comment" to a decisive !vote. The guideline as written already states that writers must verify notability before inserting redlinks and the proposed change allows deletionist behavior to run unchecked, based on their sole opinion that a topic might not be notable. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, though I feel like the wording could be improved a bit, perhaps. I don't have a great idea for that at the moment, however, and my agreement isn't conditional on a copyedit. @Walter, there are definitely people who disagree with you regarding to usefulness of redlinks to start articles. In fact, to synthesize the points here, I would say that red links can be very useful when they're added conservatively (and when it's safe to presume others only use them for notable subjects). A list of Grammy Award winners, for example, makes a great list to turn red into blue. I think it's sufficiently implied in "this should be done when X" that "you should not do this unless X" (I think Wikipedia tends to err on the lighter side of gray, if that makes sense). They can be challenged like anything else, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree this is a proposal that would amount to even more policing on Wikipedia. It's hard enough to keep up with new article patrol & AfC, but now there's a proposal to police redlinks? I have a simple solution: if the redlinks you encounter are not notable, in your opinion, Be Bold and remove them, or add them to a redlinks list for creation. This idea will not help Wikipedia grow, but will hurt the gnomers and patrollers by giving them.more work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No more policing is required for this than for creation of articles. With the number of articles that go through the deletion process we can see that no policing is involved article creation so this won't add any overhead to patrollers, but it will offer them tools for removing seas of red. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove redlinks if you think they're not going to be notable. Adding to the policy when we have a huge backlog of new articles to patrol & a backlog at AfC is not a good idea. We already have a tool: the edit function. There's no need for this proposal. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did twice and the editor who added them in re-added them. There is a need for this proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz I understand your frustration, but what you are talking about is an edit war. If you removed them and they were re-added, then that's a point at which you can start discussing with the editor why they were re-added and if the conflict can't be resolved on talk page, take it further. There's no need to have a policy against red links. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But when the editor refuses to even discuss whether the subjects will ever gain prominence and instead points to this policy (of course ignoring WP:REDNOT, it's time to update the policy to avoid edit wars like this. I've had about four a year like this and right now, I have time to change the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree – the lead section of this guideline already has "It is useful ... to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" (emphasis added). Seems like redundantly repeating what is clear from the outset, thus adding complication where none is needed. Further, as has been suggested at the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New editor requires assistance on various finer points of several MoSes, the complaint about the edit that set all of this in motion was a behavioural issue: seems like a very bad idea to combat behavioural issues by rewrites of content guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, I think that you're right, but there are passages in the policy, especially (but not only) "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." at REDDEAL which can be read to establish exceptions to that general rule. I, personally, don't think that they do, but the argument that they do isn't entirely without weight due to the ambiguity in drafting here, thus creating drama as illustrated by the dispute that led us here. The suggested change makes it clear that they do not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, WP:RULECRUFT, and you seem to forget where you said this was a behavioural issue. The disputants at the !Hero page did not use the article talk page, and, as you know, article talk page(s) ... are the first resort for all disputes about Wikipedia content. Both disputants are knee-deep in behavioural issues, e.g. starting a WP:FORUMSHOP immediately after I had recommended to take a good look at WP:CONSENSUS (yes, WP:FORUMSHOP is part of that policy). The problem here is not with the REDLINK guideline or with any part of it, it are people apparently unaware of some of the basic principles of Wikipedia editing, like negotiating a consensus on an article talk page instead of tagging the regulars as a first step in a discussion. The proposed additions to the redlink guideline are more in line with furthering endless disputes than with a closer adherence to consensus-seeking procedures: thus no, rulecruft and I'm flatly against it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I erred when I continued the conversation on my talk page when there's a clear notice to take it to the article's talk page in the edit notice. I'm not forum shopping to get the editor to relent though, I'm trying to prevent any other editors from having to deal with the fecal matter ever again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your language. Here is the kind of edit I would prefer not to have to deal with again: don't think you are the first one to suggest an "improvement" to a guideline that would make it easier for them to "win" a dispute going on elsewhere. It will happen again, I'm sure. But no reason for me to call it fecal matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. It's perfectly acceptable language. if it offends you, show that the words I used were taboo first.

As for an editor requesting a change to a guideline that has served its purpose and needs to be updated, I will not relent in calling more out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stick to my "Disagree" then, I'd rather seek logical argument to make me change my mind than calling out. Thus far you only illustrated why the proposed update to this guideline is not desirable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cautiously agree. I think this seems reasonable, although I am concerned that it is open to abuse by those who might challenge a whole heap of valid redlinks and require a lot of time-wasting - this should not become an excuse for mini-RfDs. That said, I am sympathetic to the issue people are facing and most of the time redlinks should probably not be created for genuinely doubtful cases anyway (i.e. if you can't prove the redlink is valid with a few quick links, a SNG or a couple of sentences, it should be left out). Frickeg (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per this, "The guideline as written already states that writers must verify notability before inserting redlinks and the proposed change allows deletionist behavior to run unchecked, based on their sole opinion that a topic might not be notable" by SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what should happen if they don't do that? Nothing? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF that they have done that. On the other hand, you could simply do WP:BEFORE or have a discussion on the article talk page. If the two sides are unable to agree, then wait for a consensus of other editors. There is no time-sensitiveness to WP articles which are not violations of BLP or copyvio and in this case, since it is about an article which has not been created, there isn't a legal urgency and absolutely no permanent harm will come of having a redlink in an article. Neither drama nor editwarring is justifiable. SusunW (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as the object of the change is not the improvement of content, but a change in optics (i.e. removing the red). The proposal also shifts the bar from "plausibly be notable" to "proven to be notable". That makes a big difference especially if non-english or pre internet era topics are involved. For example a main actor in a notable Burmese television series can reasonably be expected to to have played in another series or movies. Can I prove that at this moment? No - therefor under this proposal he would need to be unlinked. He appears again in another notable series that another author writes an article on, who faces the same dilemma and would not be allowed to redlink, although at this point we would have a strong indication of notability based on incoming links if they had been linked. There are several projects which use the number of redlinks to a particular title to establish the need of creating an article by using bot generated lists. Not allowing redlinks in those cases also add extra work to article creators as the have to hunt for mentions of existing articles rather than having them readymade by using the what-links-here feature. Of course not everything is plausibly notable. A small town mayor is not likely to be notable. Cameraman No 2 on Movie X is most likely not notable. In those cases existing guideline already forbids the readlink, and therefore no change is needed. Agathoclea (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Agathoclea: So which of the redlinks at !Hero (album) would you suggest are "plausibly be notable"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: did the author of this article explained the logic to have some name with red-link and some others not? I would expect or all are red-link or all are not or just few of them red-link since they are planning to write an article for each of them. I do not think they are planning to write all those articles... But in general I agree that a good use of a red-link is better than a policy of the red-links. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Elisa.rolle: No. I asked point-blank if any had a change to become an article and the question was ignored. See my talk page before I archived the discussion. This is a clear example where the guideline was used in order to avoid good use red links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Walter Görlitz: I can give you an example where I used red-links even if I will probably not create the article myself: I improved this article Inglis Fletcher and I noticed she was inducted into the North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame, therefore I searched if there was such article in Wikipedia. There was not but another article North Carolina literature had this sentence: "The "North Carolina Literary Hall of Fame" (est.1996) resides in the James Boyd House in the town of Southern Pines."... therefore I changed it as a subsection and included the inductees list. Of 60 inductees, 8 are red-links... But they are included in an all of fame about North Carolina Literature, therefore I think that is also a way to push people to convert those red-links into blue writing the article, even if I will not write it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Elisa.rolle: Sorry. I didn't mean to imply, or at least have you infer, that you were the editor in question. This is the discussion thread. Notice the question and comment: "Is there a hope that they will ever become blue links? If not, don't create them." The response is telling me that I'm incorrect (no, the MoS is incorrect or it contradicts itself). I follow-up with asking if there is hope of them becoming blue links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Walter Görlitz: no, no, I know you were not referring to me, I wanted just to give you an example when I think the use of red-links is fine, cause indeed, I hope they will become blue-links. I saw the other article, and I too think many of those red-links are not necessary. The creator of that page should have just accepted your edit. But creating a policy for the bad-behaviour of one is not the solution I think. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to some of the concerns above: The change does in some ways seem redundant to guidance already here, and that's part of why my agreement above includes some hemming and hawwing about whether the wording is ideal. I read this as, in a way, attending to an unusual imbalance, though. We say that an article should be plausible, taking into account notability and verifiability, in order to link to it. That's well and good, but if someone doesn't follow that guidance or is otherwise new to the idea, the reverse is much less flexible: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". It's a very rare case of an absolute "certainty" written into Wikipedia guidelines. It is, of course, difficult to argue certainty of a negative when it comes to something as subjective as notability. For almost everything else, the burden is on the one looking to add content to show the positive (in the sense of arguing that it is verifiable, notable, etc.). Maybe the better fix for this issue would be to change the wording of the remedy to something like "Do not remove red links without a good faith attempt to determine whether an article is plausible first." This makes it more like WP:BEFORE and WP:BURDEN, preventing someone from simply removing all redlinks because of personal preference while also allowing them to challenge the addition of a red link like they would any other claim of notability. Maybe I'm overthinking it. I wouldn't take it as far as Walter, but I'm sympathetic to the situation in which a user doesn't take proper care to establish plausibility and then restores the links based on the wording of this guideline putting the burden on those who want to remove rather than the other way around. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites I concur with your assessment of the situation. We are here to create an encyclopedia. Removing red links reduces the opportunity to do that and hampers integrating articles into the encyclopedia. The emphasis should be on things that detract from our goal, not ones that assist us in creation. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - if i'm understanding this proposal correctly, if a redlink is removed, then the editor who wants it kept has to prove why it's notable. I disagree for multiple reasons: 1) a redlink could be made unintentionally via a misspelling for example. If someone is to remove the redlink, a potential link to the valid spelling of the article name is lost. 2) redlinks show that there are missing gaps of information on wikipedia. by seeing that an aritcle is not on wikipedia, it encourages creation especially for me when creating articles for Women in Red such as Noel MacDonald and Ada Mackenzie. If someone had removed the redlinks, then I would not have been urged enough to create these articles. 3) if someone removed a redlink, they would not have to provide a reason why they removed the redlink. instead, if i'm reading the proposal correctly, editors can remove redlinks but people who believe that articles should be made would have to be the ones to promote creation of articles that are notable. I believe it wouldn't be fair having editors removing redlinks without explaining why they believe an article shouldn't be made. Overall, i believe redlinks are important especially for wikiprojects. I agree that blue links are important, but redlinks are one step away from blue links when editors create articles to fill in the gaps of wikipedia. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Redlink policy as is works adequately; further, it is extremely helpful to have redlinks when a new article on a topic is created, particularly where an article creator is saved the time of having to add the link to dozens of articles. One recent example is Irad Ortiz Jr., a jockey who met the WP:Horseracing SNG for quite some time, but no one got around to creating his article until last year. When the article was created, there were at least about 50 links that went live when the article did. A classic example of why redlinks are needed. It is also a waste of editor time and resources to have an AfD before there is even an "A" created. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 ::{{u|Rhododendrites}} I concur with your assessment of the situation. We are here to create an encyclopedia. Removing red links reduces the opportunity to do that and hampers integrating articles into the encyclopedia. The emphasis should be on things that detract from our goal, not ones that assist us in creation. [[User:SusunW|SusunW]] ([[User talk:SusunW|talk]]) 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 '''Disagree''' - if i'm understanding this proposal correctly, if a redlink is removed, then the editor who wants it kept has to prove why it's notable. I disagree for multiple reasons: 1) a redlink could be made unintentionally via a misspelling for example. If someone is to remove the redlink, a potential link to the valid spelling of the article name is lost. 2) redlinks show that there are missing gaps of information on wikipedia. by seeing that an aritcle is not on wikipedia, it encourages creation especially for me when creating articles for Women in Red such as [[Noel MacDonald]] and [[Ada Mackenzie]]. If someone had removed the redlinks, then I would not have been urged enough to create these articles. 3) if someone removed a redlink, they would not have to provide a reason why they removed the redlink. instead, if i'm reading the proposal correctly, editors can remove redlinks but people who believe that articles should be made would have to be the ones to promote creation of articles that are notable. I believe it wouldn't be fair having editors removing redlinks without explaining why they believe an article shouldn't be made. Overall, i believe redlinks are important especially for wikiprojects. I agree that blue links are important, but redlinks are one step away from blue links when editors create articles to fill in the gaps of wikipedia. --[[User:MrLinkinPark333|MrLinkinPark333]] ([[User talk:MrLinkinPark333|talk]]) 04:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree''':  Redlink policy as is works adequately; further, it is extremely helpful to have redlinks when a new article on a topic is created, particularly where an article creator is saved the time of having to add the link to dozens of articles.  One recent example is [[Irad Ortiz Jr.]], a jockey who met the WP:Horseracing SNG for quite some time, but no one got around to creating his article until last year.  When the article was created, there were at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Irad_Ortiz_Jr. about 50 links] that went live when the article did.  A classic example of why redlinks are needed.  It is also a waste of editor time and resources to have an AfD before there is even an "A" created.  [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 21:07, 3 September 2017