I expect this to be a red link as that page doesn't exists, but it's not showing,neither on the article does. It only shows "This page has not been created", what happened? User3749 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on mobile, there is a known issue currently where red links display as blue. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. --Izno (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the task that is currently going on to repair it here. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across several articles that have contained red links for an extended period of time, the least being months and some for even a few years. Is there a time threshold for when it's appropriate to get rid of red links? Is it okay to have articles with high readership with red links? I'm just trying to understand when it's appropriate to keep red links in articles. There have been several times where I see editors add red links to different articles noting that they'll come back soon to create the article and the red links are there for a long period of time. Is fine to delete them or no? Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always inspect incoming links to red links and try to find them in other Wikipedias. If both turn up nothing, I remove the link. If there's an article in another Wikipedia, I use {{ill}} to link to that. If it's not in another Wikipedia but there are several incoming links, I keep the red link. The length of time doesn't come into it – WP:There is no deadline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a red link is supposed to indicate that an article on that subject is needed, and is not supposed to be used for anything else, why is the only thing you see when you place the cursor over that word "the article does not exist". Why doesn't it say "article needed"? Imagine being a living person whose name is red-linked and all you see is "the article does not exist"! Wikipedia can be so confusing when it comes to living people. Sometimes we really care about how they are treated. How could we get that cursor message changed? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that the page doesn't even bring up the connection to deleted pages.

Imagine the following scenario:

1) A red link is created

2) Someone creates its article

3) That article is deleted for not being notable (etc)

4) The link turns back to red

At this stage logic dictates that the red link should be removed. if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article is no longer true. And indeed there is text to this effect The link is broken and no longer leads to an article.

But I can't interpret this any other way than this: if you think a particular red link just isn't notable enough, you can't just remove it - somebody else could revert and oppose.

You need to actually go through the trouble of creating the article. Only after article has been demonstrably struck down as not notable (through DEPROD or AfD) can you delete the red link, and resist reverters by pointing to the delete log.

It seems there needs to be a better way of doing this.

The section on deleting existing red links should discuss the connection to AfD. If you believe the red link just isn't notable you should be able to delete it without first having to waste effort on creating an article you suspect will be deleted as not notable.

CapnZapp (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit1: Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the lede.

Draft articles are not redlinks, they could be added to the wikipedia articles as blue links with piping or even without it. 

Rationale: This will enhance the clarity and will appropriately guide the editors, especially for the IPs and registered occasional editors who comprise over 99% of the editors and create majority of the content. Editors with registered accounts who are heavy users of wikipedia likely account less than 0.1% of all the editors and likely contribute less than 5% (at best 10%) of all valid content as major chunk of their time is consumed by the maintenance and bureaucratic issues such as anti-vandalism patrolling, enforcement of policies and regulations, responding to noticeboard and projects issues. Only these small number of editors engage in the lengthy and heated debates, most IPs and occasional editors usually walk away from the topic or from the wikipedia itself. Guidelines and policies must be geared towards the core stakeholder, "non-heavy editors" (i.e. IPs and occasional editors) are the core and most important editors are they create the bulk of valid content. Inclusion of the phrase above will eliminate the subjectivity related to the grey area within which draft article exist. This will reduce any discussions related to removal of "wikipedia links to draft articles" from the wikipedia articles by the over enthusiastic "heavy editors" many of whom love to get entangled in heavy debates, which usually drives IPs and non-heavy editors away from the wikipedia. Clearly defining wikipdia links to draft article within wikipedia articles as "not the redlink" is a good practice.

Wikipedia links to draft article within wikipedia articles might appear as red in color but once someone clicks on them, it takes the reader to a blue link draft, hence it is not a read link in the "spirit" of the word. The word redlink must be interpreted in a way which does not negate the work of occasional editors and IP, so that those are not removed from the article or "see also" as redlink by the heavy editors. Alternatively, to satisfy the very pedantic "heavy-user editors" the links to draft articles can be included with piping.

Alternative solution: In case, someone strongly feels against the inclusion of this edit, then at least add it as a [[ Template:Note|note]] to the end of first paragraph of the lede so that this explanation will still appear in the notes of this article.

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]