Wikipedia talk:Red link

Contradiction: YES redlink to "article that can be created" and NO "article creation guide", so which is it?

The gist of the style guideline is that redlinks to articles that should be created should exist. But then there is this non-sequitor that states the exact opposite:

"Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first."

Which is correct? they can't both be correct at the same time. No "article creation guide" contradicts the entire article and it says to NOT create redlinks first. It reads like spam to get people to read the essay WP:Write the article first. It also is undue weight to have a contradiction in the second paragraph. Can it be reworded so it does not contradict the entirety of the guideline. See Talk:Eddie Foy, Sr. and join the discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the contradictory paragraph here for the discussion and demoted the essay to the see also section. It appears to be a dissenting opinion embedded in the guideline

"Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."

I don't see the conflict or why the text needed to be removed from the guideline. The text is stating that we should not create a bunch of red links simply because we want those articles created. Like the lead of the guideline currently states, "A red link, like red link example, signifies a link to a page that is either non-existent or deleted. It is useful in editing article text 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." We should only create redlinks for WP:Notable topics that are likely to have viable Wikipedia articles. Like WP:Notable states, not all WP:Notable topics need a Wikipedia article; some fit well in an existing article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the content you dispute is guideline material, it should have stayed in the guideline while you dispute the matter on the talk page. The note at the top of the guideline states: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." And I'm not sure what you mean by WP:Due weight, since that policy only applies to Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, there is no contradiction between "You are allowed to create redlinks" and "...but you are urged to write the article first." BMK (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How about putting 'if a dispute arises about the existence of a red link, consider its notability and write a draft'? (Linking to the Article Wizard.) That has helped me when putting red links into articles. (Although it does nothing for habituating people to red links in articles, and puts the onus onto the person who wants the red link.) I think that the exhortation in the nutshell to only remove red links if you think Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject should be reiterated in the lead. It gets a little lost in the 'how to deal with existing red links' section. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Given what we say about "One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start", I do not think it would be helpful to place any onus upon editors creating redlinks, beyond advising them to abide by article naming restrictions and their good faith conviction that the redlinked topic is notable per WP:N. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), do you have anything to state regarding what I stated above? What Beyond My Ken (BMK) stated above? There should be something advising editors not to unnecessarily overlink when it comes to red links, similar to the WP:Overlink guideline. For example, the lead currently states, "Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles." Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal names

"Red links to personal names should be avoided particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual."

This is a little confusing as written. Is a "personal name" the first name of a person as opposed to a surname or a family name? Should it just read "person's name". It also mentions that the name might match up with a sex offender of the same name. Why would we have a list of non-notable sex offenders? I don't think we need to NOT link people's names, we just need to remind people when they create an article to properly disambiguate the person and check the "What links here" button. People's names are probably the most common reason to create a redlink. I do it all the time to see if someone is already in Wikipedia. Otherwise every reader that is curious has to create a red link to see if that person has an article. Almost every list I see is a sea of red names. I have been working on some lists of award winners for over 5 years. See International Polo Cup (redlink version) vs International Polo Cup (no redlink version), how would I know who has a biography and who doesn't unless they are linked. It makes more sense to just NOT have a list of non notable sex-offenders. Does this make sense? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

would you like" names of individuals?" The difficulty of wording policy or guidelines precisely is one of the reason why I regard policy and guidelines as descriptive of what we do. It is the examples that make the guideline, and the exemplification in actual cases that best interprets it. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with RAN's suggestion of "person's name" - "individuals" is less plain language. The issue with red linking a name and walking away is that next year someone may create an article for a person with same name who has become notable - as a sex offender, or CEO or Olympic athlete. This creates a misdirect, which would confuse readers. For example, a list of candidates for mayor of Toronto linked a minor candidate named Kevin Richardson. Even if the link had been to "Kevin Richardson (Toronto politician)", there would be a significant risk that when the article is created, it is about a different Kevin Richardson who has run for office. Linking a name and expecting someone else to create the article is a bad idea. Ground Zero | t 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try your wording adjustment. Of course we ought not make lists of people with borderline notability for something negative, and I think there's also a consensus to not include redlinks in lists of people of a specific cultural group. The problem of eds. filling in redlinks inappropriately is related to the problem of eds. changing redirects to something inappropriate--most of what I have seen is promotional, not abuse. I think there's been a discussion of technical measures. The use of name qualifiers would help--the likelihood of an example like just mentioned is very much lower than without them, but our current naming policy is to not use them if not necessary. I personally do not agree with that, and think we should follow the practice of some other WPs that use such qualifiers routinely, but this is one of the things I've given up arguing for. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Ground Zero. The hypothetical problem is that someone in the future will expand the current list of seven sex offenders and they may match a name somewhere in Wikipedia. Who don't we just more closely monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. It is so much easier than deleting or not creating hundreds of thousands of redlinks of people's names. You can make the same argument to ban bluelinks since they are just as likely to be improperly disambiguated with a name on the existing sex offender list. Just monitor the sex offender list for BLP problems. I just did that recently for the scientific misconduct page, where people were adding in their enemies without any context. This was a bluelink problem: Jimmy Wales was on the Terry Gross show and she asked him why the name of her producer linked to a fictional mass murder, he said it was improperly disambiguated and fixed it. The lesson, simple names such as Danny Miller should lead to a disambiguation page, and almost all already do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of listing all the bad things like sex worker and rapists, we just need to comply with BLP.

Caution should be used when creating a redlink to a person's name. All the rules that apply to WP:BLP equally apply to redlinked names. When creating a biography from a redlink be sure to use "what links here" to make sure all the incoming links are properly disambiguated.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), DGG and Ground Zero, I just read the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" part, and I was confused. I was tempted to alter that text and/or start a discussion about the matter here at this talk page, before I saw that there is already a section about it. Why was I confused? Why was I tempted to change it? That's because the text reads contradictory to me, since, if the person is WP:Notable, then it's common that the person's name should be linked. It's like the WP:Red link guideline is encouraging the creation of a blue link for all notable topics except people. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

From you guys' discussion, it seems that the text is trying to state that the link shouldn't simply be about the name; it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name. But the "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" text does not express that well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah, going by what Ground Zero stated in his "12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post above, it's not even about "it should be about the link covering the person, not the person's name." Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored the text that was removed because I see a couple of editors expressing a concern that it's not the best wording, but no consensus that it should be removed, or what should replace it. "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided, particularly when the name is used in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual" I'm not seeing an issue with this wording, particularly because it keeps this guideline in line with the BLP policy, which most redlinks aren't directly affected by. Personal names also are far from unique in most circumstances; editors will create wikilinks to a name without checking if it's the same person, even if that article already exists, so care needs to be taken when dealing with BLP subjects. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

query

At what point are "future article" red links in an article excessive?

Note Aurelia Greene has red links for 14 articles not yet created for "New York Legislatures" spanning from 185 to 198.

Should a limit of some sort be placed on such mechanical lists of non-existent articles? Or is it likely that since the articles will eventually exist that we should populate biographies with all potential future articles and my amusement is unwarranted? Collect (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That example is just plain bad writing. Even if they were blue links we wouldn't/shouldn't individually list and link the 15 specific numbered legislatures she served in. The fact that 14 of them are redlinks is not the problem. The line should be edited to read: "She was a member of the New York State Assembly from 1982 to 2009." I haven't done that now so as not to destroy the example. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Except User:Kraxler is in fact creating those very articles in chronological order, so it is best to keep them. See for instance 184th New York State Legislature to see how much research goes into each article. You can see where it takes weeks of research to create a single article. While the lede can cay "She was a member of the New York State Assembly from 1982 to 2009", linking to to the session summary is an excellent idea in the body. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has been standard practice to add blue links to all congresses they were sitting in at US congressmen's bios. I just followed the pattern with state legislators. One of the main basic features of Wikipedia are exactly the blue links which lead the reader to interesting/important context. "She was a member of the NYSA from xxxx to yyyy" will never provide any context. The blue links show what happened in the Legislature while the member was acting there. And yes, there are now 7 blue links and 8 red links at Aurelia Greene, but look at Charles J. Hewitt, the first man to serve 30 years in the New York State Senate, there are 30 blue legislature links, for the interested reader to explore. And if there are no blue links, people tag articles as WP:UNDERLINKed... Kraxler (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

mobile Wikipedia

Please provide more information (in this article) about how en.m.wikipedia.org handles redlinks. 71.178.51.189 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes needed

Nav boxes NO red links

• "Red links generally are not included ... in navigational boxes" Why is that? Of course they should be. How is the reader to know whether the article exists and needs brackets to make a blue link, or we need to have an article on that person. This should be removed. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I don't agree with this removal of text you made. Just like the WP:See also section, WP:NAVBOXES are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not indicate that an article should be created. What the text you removed is stating is that a topic that does not have a Wikipedia article should not be listed in the WP:NAVBOX; so your statement of "if it is important to have the name or place in a navbox" is irrelevant since the topics should not be listed there if they have no Wikipedia articles.

I will likely start a WP:RfC on this for input. Generally, I am against significant/huge changes being made to a Wikipedia policy or guideline without significant discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A redlink indicates that an article very probably should be created. The mere existence of the name in the succession box indicates this by itself, since we use these boxes (or should be using them) only for positions that are very likely to imply notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

DGG, are you arguing that we should have red links in the navboxes? If so, the guideline already addresses the one exception to red links being in the navboxes -- the succession box aspect. Otherwise, they should not be there. Including them there doesn't even align with the WP:NAVBOX essay. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the text. There doesn't seem to be consensus for this change. WP:NAVBOX states: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "articles within English Wikipedia". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely redlinks should be permitted in navboxes. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1#Stripping redlinks from navigation templates for an old discussion on that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello all -- there's a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates about if and when retaining redlinks in navigation boxes is a good idea. Lockley (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A redlink to a person's name should be avoided

• I still think this needs to be removed "A redlink to a person's name should be avoided" it still means to NEVER create a redlink, and is being used that way in arguments to remove all redlinks in Wikipedia articles. Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create." While that may or may not be true, that has nothing to do with the relevance of personal names being used as redlinks. Would you mind giving a link to one of these arguments to remove all redlinks in Wikipedia articles that cites "a redlink to a person's name should be avoided"? Without context I don't really think that's the case, because that seems like a generalization that has no relevance to the merits of the actual content. - Aoidh (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: As seen in the #Personal names section above, I recently commented about this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of 'likelihood'

As I recently have had two reversions from the same person on the interpretation of 'likelihood', could we please clarify this in the guideline? I think that red links should be created when they link to valid titles - if it happens that they can be covered in other areas of the encyclopedia, then that is what redirects are for. I think the 'likelihood' is being confused into 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because there are few people on wikipedia to make them' or 'it's unlikely that articles will exist, because the topic is obscure'. I don't think that these are valid arguments, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and lots of notable, verifiable, and valid topics are obscure if you are outside the field that they crop up in. I would like to see some clarification of what is likely on the article guideline page - I tried to add it in (my first link) but was reverted. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and mention my username; I don't mind. Yes, I reverted you at the Yaoi article. And I stated in that revert, "And how do we know they are WP:Notable? Provide proof on the article talk page. WP:Notable is also clear that not every notable topic should have its own article." You have posted this as your proof. I will respond there. But as for validity, creating a red link just because you think that the title is valid is not valid. Too often, an editor will create a red link just because he or she wants to see an article created for that topic, even when that topic is not WP:Notable or should not have a Wikipedia article per what is outlined in the WP:NOPAGE section of the WP:Notable guideline. Then we are left with an article on a non-WP:Notable topic or a WP:Stub for a topic that will very likely never expand beyond a stub. And, yes, like I stated to you in this revert, if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated "often," not "always." And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various WP:AfDs and the like.

I noted in the #Nav boxes NO red links section above that I will likely be starting a WP:RfC on that particular red link matter. There might be other things to start a WP:RfC on regarding this guideline, since editors are coming here and adding/removing anything they want to/from this guideline as though it's not a WP:Guideline that should typically have WP:Consensus before any significant changes are made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I am not at all clear what it is that you disagree with, here. The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we should have, rather than based on what we predict will be created. Do you disagree with that? It seems incredibly reasonable, and clearly consistent with what is said elsewhere in the guideline. There's no change, here, just a clarification. On that note, what on earth does "Do not remove red links unless ... there is no article section to validly redirect the topic (see WP:NOPAGE)" mean? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Josh: To your second point, I think the clause about article sections means that a valid red link may be one where the target is a redirect to a section of an article where the notable subject is covered as part of a broader topic. That is the point of WP:NOPAGE. I have attempted to clarify the wording in the guideline. Feel free to tweak further as necessary, although – being a guideline – this point about redirects should probably remain in there unless discussed and consensus achieved to remove it. Of course, where the red link is a redirect, it's very easy to turn it blue by creating the redirect. – Wdchk (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dim here, but I still have very little idea of you are trying to say. Your new wording literally didn't make sense- "Do not remove red links unless ... a redirect to a section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." Also, given that this point was only just added by Flyer, there's no need to get consensus to remove it- I'd say we need consensus to add it. In any case, if it's to stay, it needs to be clearer. I'm sorry if this sounds like a silly request, but could you say in simple English when you believe redlinks should be removed? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point I should let @Flyer22 speak for herself. My interpretation, however, was that the point about an article section being a valid target for a red link was already in the guideline, per this edit summary. So the sentence you're having a problem with is an attempt at clarification, first by Flyer22, then by me. It's not a substantive change to the guideline, as far as I can see, but I might be wrong. Regarding clarity, I'll have to think further about that. Maybe someone else can help. – Wdchk (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm none the wiser. How can "an article section being a valid target for a red link"? If it's a redirect, it's not a redlink? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, I know that you and the IP have discussed this guideline before, and that the IP contacted you to weigh in on this latest matter. It seems that I don't fully share your and the IP's views of the WP:Red link guideline. I've explained above and here at the Yaoi talk page how I feel about the guideline. You stated, "The user editing from 110.20.234.69 is simply adding that we should judge redlinks based on what articles we should have, rather than based on what we predict will be created. Do you disagree with that?" Yes, I partly disagree with that. I stated when reverting the IP, "obscurity is one of the things to consider; WP:Notability is clear that notability does not guarantee an article." And I stated above, "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.' And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various WP:AfDs and the like." When removing red links, it is often the case that editors are predicting what will be created, and I don't see a problem with that if the editor is using common sense and is taking Wikipedia's notability guidelines into account. I do see a problem with editors simply adding red links because they want an article created, or are hoping some WP:Newbie, who has no idea how to appropriately apply Wikipedia's notability guidelines, will create it. Like I told the IP at the Yaoi talk page, we have more than one Wikipedia notability guideline, including Wikipedia:Notability (events). WP:Secondary sources covering a topic does not automatically mean that the topic is WP:Notable or that it should have its own Wikipedia article.

As for what the WP:NOPAGE aspect that I added (and Wdchk tweaked) means, it means what Wdchk stated it means. And it was already noted in the guideline by the "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." part. I decided to make mention of it more explicit, especially since the IP had re-added the "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." piece. The IP's edit on that matter made it seem as though the subject should automatically be an article; I wanted to make it clear that the subject might be better served as content placed in an existing article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we define a red link's 'likelihood' of becoming an article, if not plainly by the subject's notability and verifiability? There are already many warnings in this guideline on when not to create red links. I think that the bar of 'unlikelihood' is being set too low with cautions about obscurity. Dare I mention the other stuff on Wikipedia? A great deal of notable, verifiable, subjects are 'obscure' to someone, but are still very valid, encyclopedic topics. I also think that the concern that there are fewer hands for the work (Not brought up here, but a common media story about Wikipedia these days) is causing people to remove red links - 'what's the likelihood that someone would be interested in making an article on that topic?'.

If stubs are created (which isn't too likely these days, given my experience with the stringency of the articles for creation process... - my drafts typically get assessed as C-class on their entry into mainspace), then the editing process will find them eventually expanded into something half-decent or redirected to an article section or deleted. I sincerely doubt that there have ever been higher barriers to newbies creating stub articles on Wikipedia. (I am making a very bold claim here, because I would love to be proven wrong.)

I think there needs to be more said on how 'likelihood' is determined in this guideline, because in my experience, red links on subjects which are notable and verifiable are being removed - resulting in articles being orphaned from the start, and potentially not having people who would be interested in the topic (reading a related article) seeing the red link in that article's page and being enticed to create the article, or assist in drafting an article. I hope this helps clarify my concerns about how the 'likelihood' of a red link becoming an article is assessed, and helps move the discussion on. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I've changed the guideline page to read "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the redlink could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)." If I am understanding you correctly, this gives across the broad thrust of your claim. If that's all you are aiming to say, here, then I agree- if that's all you mean by saying that we shouldn't link to things just because they might be able to support an article, then we're on the same page. If that's not what you're saying, and you genuinely believe that we should be removing redlinks because they link to "obscure" topics which, though notable, verifiable and encyclopedic (etc.), are not something you think anyone will be bothered writing about, then I'm glad to say that your view is not currently reflected in the guideline. (Again, I'm not trying to be ignorant here, but I am having some difficulty in following what's being said...) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And I've no opinion on the anime article or any link therein. I'm here because of my interest in the guideline- no other reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with this edit you made regarding the likelihood matter, since what warrants a Wikipedia article is a case-by-case matter (like I stated above, multiple WP:Secondary sources do not mean that the topic warrants a Wikipedia article), and I'm fine with this edit you made regarding the WP:NOPAGE guideline. As for removing a red link because it links to an obscure topic, yes, I (and many other editors) agree with that...if the removal is warranted; and I've seen many cases where the removal is warranted. I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that. I'm tired of seeing lousy WP:Stubs, WP:Redundant forks, and other pages that should not be Wikipedia articles just because editors don't understand how WP:Notability works and that Wikipedia has more than one notability guideline, or because they are hoping that a WP:Newbie (who, again, doesn't understand our notability guidelines) will do the work for them.

And, yes, IP, many WP:Stubs are still created. And many of them never expand enough to be a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, Josh Milburn, going back to this edit you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the reason it was unclear to me (and I admit that this may be my problem, rather than yours) is that when someone talks about removing a redlink, I imagine there being no link, and that's certainly what the first part of the sentence was about. You were talking about replacing a redlink with a blue link- admittedly, this does involve the removal of the redlink. Concerning "I cannot stress enough that some people just want articles for topics even when those topics don't deserve an article whatsoever, and so then they toss in red links to achieve that." - yes, of course, I oppose red links to topics which "don't deserve" an article, but I don't think "obscurity" has anything to do with that. Wikipedia does and should cover a very wide array of deeply obscure topics. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Wikipedia should cover obscure topics. But, again, what I stated above about obscurity is that "if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Wikipedia article. Note: I stated 'often,' not 'always.'" By that, I mean that when it is an obscure topic, it's often the case that it's either not WP:Notable or it cannot be expanded beyond a WP:Stub and would be better served as a piece to an already-existing article. Wikipedia already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Wikipedia is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, have you seen many cases where the removal of the red link is unwarranted, too? In my experience, if a stub is created, it can't be created by a newbie, because the AFC process is such that it selects against casual article-making. Having to wait for a month before someone even looks at your page is very discouraging unless you have a firm belief in the notability and verifiability of the topic and the quality of your writing. I'm tired of having to fight for red links to notable, verifiable, encyclopedic topics. Newbies and people who edit without signing up are capable of reading the notability guidelines, just like anyone else is, and the AFC process funnels people towards the relevant guidelines for making an article. Are you certain that those stubs you see will never ever expand enough to be a worthwhile Wikipedia article? What do you consider to be a worthwhile article? The worst thing that you've said about red links is that they encourage stubs. Even if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing? Those red links might be on valid topics that could add context to the first article. Good red links help Wikipedia grow, and remind us that Wikipedia will never be finished. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

IP, you stated it yourself above -- Wikipedia is not as active as it used to be. I've been editing this site since 2007; and back then, WP:Stubs were expanded much more often. But even then, a good number of them should not have become articles. And a good number of them are still WP:Stubs. Some of them only have a few WP:Reliable sources to support them, as if that means that they should be Wikipedia articles. Yes, I generally do not see WP:Stubs as a good thing. WP:Stub even currently states, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I cannot help it that I generally don't see "article[s] deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" as good things. And I've been clear above that "Wikipedia already covers so much, and it's common that people don't search well enough to see if there is an existing article on the topic, or a place where the topic can be adequately covered, before creating an article. There is also the fact that Wikipedia is so big that they can accidentally overlook those existing articles. This is why WP:Redundant fork comments on intentional and unintentional WP:Redundant forks." So I don't know what else to state to you on this topic. You asked, "if people pepper articles with red links because they want articles on those topics - why do you seem to see that overwhelmingly as a negative thing?" If you can't see why I see that as "[an] overwhelmingly [...] negative thing," given what I stated above, then I really do not see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated why I don't regard Wikipedia being less active as being a valid consideration for the removal of red links. Wikipedia will never be complete, it will always be a work in progress. Removing red links and arguing that stubs aren't found and expanded is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Removing red links leads to articles being orphaned from their (arguably delayed) inception and being unfindable (which would eventually lead to redundant forks). Being orphaned contributes to stubs remaining so for longer - because they're not well-linked and are harder to search for, potentially interested and knowledgeable people don't find and read the stub, and don't fix it.

I'm not sure where to go from here. What makes a red link likely to become a worthwhile article? (Beyond the manpower factor.) Can we please clarify this in the guideline? As it is, red links to valid topics are being removed for reasons which do not consider the topic's notability or verifiability, which contributes to the orphaning and delayed growth of stub articles. This guideline does not define the question of 'likelihood' in a clear way. This lack of definition means that a common understanding is difficult to reach - as I think we've been demonstrating. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And I never stated that Wikipedia being less active is a valid consideration for the removal of red links. I've been very clear on what I mean, and I stand by it. You disagree, and I won't be agreeing with you. Furthermore, sources claiming that Wikipedia is less active than it used to be are quite clear that it is still very active, and they acknowledge reasons why it's less active -- such as the fact that Wikipedia already covers pretty everything there is to cover. In other words, they make it very clear that Wikipedia does not need to do much more growing. And that goes back to the points I've made about useless or silly WP:Stubs and WP:Redundant forks. Your fondness for red links will never be a view that I share. I was not speaking of WP:Orphans. Anyone wanting to know what I mean by "worthwhile" can Google the term. I am not speaking from a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale on this matter, but from several years of experience editing this site. I doubt that you are anywhere close to being a WP:Newbie, so your experience with red link matters is different than mine for some other reason. And as for "likelihood," J Milburn already changed the wording to wording that you no doubt support. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn and Flyer22: Can we go back to this edit, please? It doesn't look like anything I was trying to say. That whole sentence is about "Do not remove red links unless ...". "Remove" as in "delete the double brackets". (Sure, we hope and expect that someone real soon will create a page for that term to turn the red link blue. However deciding whether the new page is an article or a redirect to a section is an entirely separate matter. What we are talking about in this part of the guideline is, right now, should the red link be there or not.) The text now reads, "Do not remove red links unless ... the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section ...". Sorry, but that is going to be misunderstood. Remove the red link and replace it with a link to a section ... when? I know we're having trouble finding the right words, but the process we're trying to describe is not complicated: (1) is the redlinked term notable? If yes, leave the red link in; if no, you can remove it. (2) Separate decision, no need to make this decision immediately – do we write about the notable term in its own article or in a section of another article about a broader topic? If a section, we create a redirect from the notable term to that section. But maybe we are over-complicating by trying to go into unnecessary detail about part (2) of the process. Here's an attempt to separate things out into a simpler explanation; what does everyone think?

"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. (Sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic – see WP:NOPAGE). Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability." – Wdchk (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated to Josh Milburn, "[G]oing back to this edit you made regarding WP:NOPAGE, I don't understand what wasn't clear to you about the wording before you made that alteration. The text was stating that the red link could be a potential article or that it could be turned into a link to a section; in both cases, the link would no longer be a red link." As for your proposal, Wdchk, I'd rather that the "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses. What do you think of wording the text as "or if the red link could be turned into a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see WP:NOPAGE)."?

On a side note: No need to WP:Ping me to this page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wdchk, I prefer your alternative wording here to the previous wording. I think "inclusion" would be better than "notability", as notability isn't necessarily the only relevant concern. I am opposed to Flyer's suggestion- creating a monster sentence with lots of conjunctions is not helpful; it's obfuscatory. How about "A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, it may sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." I doubt this is perfect. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is the same as your wording, except I changed "could be replaced with a link" to "could be turned into a link." I changed it per what I stated in my "08:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post, and your response to that. The current WP:NOPAGE wording is a mix of all three of our efforts. But I can be fine with either your or Wdchk's latest proposals (I already mentioned above that I prefer Wdchk's "Sometimes" sentence not be in parentheses). Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies- I have no preference between "turned into" or "replaced", but perhaps we could clarify that we mean "blue link". After all, a red link is still a link. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we leave out the part about "red link could be turned into / replaced with a blue link to a section" because that seemed to be a point at which we started to get confusing (see my previous comment 04:08, 3 May 2015). My reasoning is that someone who wants more info about linking to sections can go read about it at WP:NOPAGE. To avoid tying ourselves in knots, since this is the red link guideline I'm suggesting we focus mainly on why we would leave or remove a red link. I'm intentionally cutting out the explanation about converting red links to blue links because really that's a different topic (when do you create an article vs. when do you link to a section vs. when do you create a redirect, etc. – all those things documented elsewhere). I'm actually good with J Milburn's version of 07:59, 3 May 2015, with a minor copyedit:
"A red link should not be removed from an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article. Note that, per WP:NOPAGE, it may sometimes it may be appropriate to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Do not remove red links unless it is clear that the topic fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." – Wdchk (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In a situation where one person adds red links to a subject because they think it is notable, verifiable, and probably should have its own article, and someone else removes it because they think it falls under WP:NOPAGE (as in yaoi recently), does the current wording of the guideline provide enough guidance to allow such a dispute to be worked out? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not explicitly remove your links at the Yaoi article because of WP:NOPAGE; if I felt that your links covered WP:Notable topics, I would not have asked you to provide proof of the matter. After you provided sources, what you consider proof, I still doubted that the topics should be standalone articles; I still do. I'm not convinced that your red links in that case are WP:Notable. That's why I explicitly stated that multiple WP:Reliable sources noting a topic does not automatically mean that a topic is WP:Notable, and then I attempted to explain what I meant (all of this is documented at the Yaoi talk page).

I think that the latest wording that J Milburn and Wdchk suggested above is clear enough. And if it's not as clear as it can be and needs more detail, that should be addressed lower on the page instead of in the introduction. I'm also not sure that this edit you made is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I made that edit because all the other WP: style abbreviations on the page are explained or hidden behind a plain English explanation of what they are. I changed the BLP one for the same reason. Having the plain English there makes it clearer as to why someone should read that link, and will hopefully result in more click-throughs. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again- navboxes

Per [1] the addition of a "no redlinks in navboxes" comment in this article flies in the face of reality and, more to the point, is being used as a bludgeon in a more targeted discussion at the navboxes article. The issue in editing these guidelines is clear: "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article... 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...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Nowhere is this more important than in navboxes, to flag editors about what articles have yet to be written that are relevant to a topic. We have on editor who seems to have an obsession about removing redlinks from navboxes based on a random set of rules, often with little understanding of why redlinks are in given articles - while wikipedia has many articles, it truly is not finished and redlinks help encourage people to create articles. Thus, this one-man crusade needs to end. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an addition. It is a long-standing part of the guideline (I can see it at least as far back as 2010) that was removed without prior discussion on 29 April. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Guideline revision urgently needed

There's something very wrong about the notion that nav boxes shouldn't have red links. If content is missing on a subject, red links in a nav box are one of the most productive ways to get an editor to blue link them. Especially if an editor declares that they are ploughing through them. Obviously 90% + red links and very few blue links isn't really a good idea, but a healthy number of red links should be perfectly acceptable. Particularly if an editor is actively working on filling them to remove them in the process citing WP:RED is disruptive. We have a problem here in that Rob Sinden is treating this as a legal enforcement and it's a poorly thought out guideline and counterproductive to development on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is fine. Navboxes are nothing more than a navigational aid to help users navigate between existing articles here on the English Wikipedia. Redlinks hinder navigation. Redlinks are better off filled in through a list article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you hinder development. How does a red link affect navigation? So long as there's a fair few blue links readers can ignore what is missing and click them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Anthony Trollope}}. Not a useful navigational tool. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Doc. The guidelines are flawed and should be more used more flexibly. There are those who cannot act with even the smallest deviation from the guidelines, regardless of how unhelpful those guidelines are, but they are best ignored for the long-term good of the encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're going to need an RFC. It seems there is massive polarity in the community on this issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• (ec 3 times) Support red links in navboxes: as Dr. Blofeld says, missing important topics related to a subject would make fine points of departure to develop articles. This came true for Bach cantatas, where estimated hundred articles were created from red links which gave the proper article name, - while if you wait for random filling that consistency is lost. - A person disliking a red link could create a stub almost as fast as deleting the red link. - The navbox is seen by people reading an article, - a list article rather not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ps: How do people feel about red ill links, for topics notable in a different Wikipedia, example de? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes are not for interwiki linking. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". (Bolding mine). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Er, aren't redlinks already allowed? WP:REDNOT states Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. 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. Number 57 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Let's keep it simple: remove the navbox bit, that has been the subject of this dispute. Use redlinks in navboxes subject to the general guideline for WP:RED, i.e. 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 ...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• And just to be clear on this, I am completely opposed to what you are suggesting – I think it's a very bad idea to apply the policy you are suggesting to Navboxes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision proposal

I propose that the guideline be changed to something along the lines of: "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in a navigation boxes, it is acceptable to have a number of red links. Red links can indicate that important articles are missing and be a productive way of inviting readers to build content and fill them. However, an excessive number of red links which far exceed the number of blue links is ill-advised, and editors should refrain from adding excessive red links to templates unless they are actively working through them and intend to fill them all.

• Support (as the proposer)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I really think this needs a proper RfC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  this is functioning as an RFC, and what better place to do it then on the talk page of the problematic guideline page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, would not even need the ratio of blue to red, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, but really think an RfC is needed. Navboxes are nothing more than a navigational aid to help users navigate between existing articles here on the English Wikipedia. A sea of redlinks hinders navigation. Redlinks are better off filled in through a list article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  Did you not read the proposed revision? A sea of red links, far greater than the number of blue links is ill-advised unless the editor adding them is actively working through them blue linking them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Red links will not hinder navigation (how stupid do you think our readers really are that they cannot recognise a common way of showing a non-link?) and dumping links into a list article seems to me that you somehow consider list articles to somehow be second class cizitens here, which is against every consensus on the point I've seen. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• The guideline reads: "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." Is this not sufficient? Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  Obviously not because Sinden continues to cause disruption for editors working with red links. He's convinced that any red link is an evil and must be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  As far as I can make out, there was no specific trigger for this, other than my trying to maintain status quo on the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  The guideline is sufficiently clear on the point that any red link is not evil. The vast majority of articles listed in navboxes are part of a set, and are covered by this provision. I don't see what needs to be changed here. Alakzi (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose – redlinks are absolutely useless in Navboxes (outside of the exception Alakzi mentions), and allowing for this has ultimately led to the creation of lots of Navboxes that are almost entirely redlinks!! Keeping the guideline to excluding redlinks from Navbox should be maintained – heck, the enforcement of such should actually ramp up!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And I've said nav boxes like that are ill advised. There has to be a good balance. A few red links in a template. notable missing articles can often be a productive thing. Making wikipedia the most comprehensive source should be the ultimate goal, and if we are hampering editors from working together to achieve that within reason or reverting editors who want to build them then it's counterproductive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

They absolutely are ill-advised. But some like that already exist on en Wiki right now. If the people in this thread have their way, Navboxes like that will not only be "allowed" – they'll be encouraged! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question — Why not simply leave non-existent articles as unlinked titles? Just enter the text and leave off the brackets, the text will be black and it is clear to readers that there is no link. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How does that aid navigation? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1) Remember WP:RF. What would a casual reader make of being directed to a page creation form when they are looking for information? I would suggest that having no link is clearer and less disruptive to the reader.

2) The suggestion is also a way to diffuse an ongoing and increasingly rancorous argument! :-)

The question remains, it's not a binary choice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom, for a limited amount. The amount of red links should, imnho, be kept low and mainly highlight the most important pages that are missing from the encyclopedia. I do prefer leaving 'Red links' black, per above comment, just unlinked and not red-linked. This shows that an important article is missing but at the same time doesn't draw the eye to the red, which is the colour that the brain "sees" first, attention-wise. Randy Kryn 13:52, 17 2015 (UTC)

  Navboxes are not a substitute for lists; they must contain links. The way we indicate that a notable topic (i.e. one that would deserve its own article and hence be part of a navbox) is missing is by means of a red link. Alakzi (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  You are probably right, I just wish the color wasn't so harsh and disrupting to templates. Would people mind if a less-harsh colour were introduced on some templates through coding? For example, it's a fact that police will give a red car more tickets, or at least notice its actions, for that reason - that the brain registers 'Red' before any other colour. Randy Kryn 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongest support. The redlinks are part of the sum of all human knowledge. They let the reader/editor know that something is missing. They are as important as the bluelinks. Check out the templates in Category:African economy templates and you'll find lots of redlinks. Check out {{Economy of Cameroon}} in particular... lots and lots of redlinks. Removing these redlinks, IMO, is akin to saying, "We are exerting control over knowledge. If the article has been written, we'll account for it here. If it hasn't been written, we don't want you to know about it." List articles with redlinks are important, too, but it's comparing apples and oranges to say that one can have lots of redlinks while the other cannot. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support I love this idea. It sounds like a great way to encourage people to create content, including the aim to build this encyclopaedia. I don't think the ratio should be of concern. JAGUAR  14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it works in theory, not in practice. Also, the point is Navboxes are not the places to use redlinks to encourage content creation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this should turn into a real RfC (with a template and all), so that input is gathered from a wide and public range of users rather than just people who happen to have this page on their watchlist or people who happened to see a semi-related short-lived ANI. It's not too late to turn it into a public RfC, as it was just started today I think. I think a public RfC will increase the likelihood of whatever consensus "sticking" without being disputed again in the near future; also it would lessen the temptation to canvass, or to inappropriately canvass. Short of a real RfC, I predict the status quo is going to stick longterm, whatever the outcome here. (Anyway, don't ask me to change this to an RfC, as I didn't start the poll and I'm taking this page off my watch list.) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support with minor wording change. "At least two or three" is pointless: three is implicitly at least two. The risk is that some future wikipinhead will then argue that a template with four bluelinks should be deleted because it is neither two nor three. You know we have people like that.

I would favour "at least one bluelink", for the reason of a simple use case. Consider a naval ship class. One class article, six ships, one notable battle. It's very likely we will first encounter this with no more than the class article (i.e. one bluelink). Yet there is already value in such a navbox, for listing the ship names and indicating their relevance to the battle. This has value to the reader, it is useful, we should allow it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero value to a navbox with one blue link. What are you navigating between? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes (and lists of redlinks generally) have more value than just navigation to completed articles. They define lists. They illustrate the breadth of a topic. They also indicate targets for article creators (and consistent naming across sets is awkward to manage, so they have value for that too).

Nothing about a policy that redlinks are acceptable makes them compulsory. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Lists are one thing, Navboxes are another. I agree that redlinks are fine (maybe even "good") in the context of lists. But they definitely aren't "good" in Navboxes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a good example (cited in the 2010 Railways discussion linked above). A complex list and navbox, with naming that changed over two periods of history and so many of these links are piped. It was extremely useful to get these two lists sorted out at the start, from some consistent sources, and then to work on the articles as we could. When created, this template (which is one of many similar) was bright red. It's now mostly blue. BilCat's observation that in the year after the aircraft project set up similar templates (with lots of red) it majorly increased article creation rates for linked articles is also relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The edit-warred text started the sentence with "Red links generally are not included" (emph added). Combined with the standard guideline disclaimer at the top of the page, this really seems like more of a WP:SOFIXIT issue if the nav template is being populated with articles that will soon be created. See also WP:CREEP and WP:LAME; we do not need instructions for everything. The specific text proposed seems over-detailed for a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I stated in the #Nav boxes NO red links discussion above that just like the WP:See also section, WP:NAVBOXES are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not indicate that an article should be created. The text on this is stating that a topic that does not have a Wikipedia article should not be listed in the WP:NAVBOX; the guideline already addresses the one exception to red links being in the navboxes -- the succession box aspect. Otherwise, they should not be there. I don't want people using the navbox to stuff a bunch of redlinks. I also suggest that a WP:RfC is started on this matter, and that this is possibly advertised at the WP:Village pump. Given the sudden influx of editors here, and the current full-protection, it's clear that this matter has already been publicized. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose revising the existing guideline, as proposed. Red links are already permitted in navboxes, but they may not predominate. The proposed change potentially opens the floodgates to the rapid creation of navboxes with many red links and few, if any blue links to existing stand-alone articles. The purpose of navboxes is not to encourage the creation of new article on subjects that any given navbox creator thinks are needed. Article creation must absolutely remain anchored in Wikipedia's concept of "notability"; what is being proposed here will encourage the creation of more articles on non-notable subjects, lead to more disputes over article notability, and further burden our AfD processes. While allowing that some red links are permitted in navboxes, where the subjects of such red links are arguably notable and for which articles are likely to be created in the future, the basic rule of thumb should remain "create content first, then create navboxes to navigate among then-existing articles." I'm not sure what specific dispute, problem or special case is driving experienced editors like Dr. Blofeld, Schrocat and Gerda Arendt (all of whom should know better) to support this sweeping and ill-conceived proposal, but I urge you to find a more specific solution to your problem rather than foisting a radical and sweeping change on our well-established understanding of when navboxes, including red links, are appropriate. This is a very bad idea; the idea that a navbox might include no blue links at all is just goofy. Wikipedia does not suffer from a shortage of navboxes, and there are far better ways to encourage the creation of new content regarding notable subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the proposal Dirtlawyer1? Since where do I advocate "the idea that a navbox might include no blue links at all". I said provided that the nav box has a minimum of two or three blue links and that the number of red links are not excessive in proportion to the blue links. A balance where there are a number of blue links and a few red ones to try to improve comprehension of a topic, without excess. Sinden uses these guidelines as a formal policy, and in doing so hampers editors from producing content. You support that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but other people followed up on you suggesting that there needn't be any guideline requiring blue links, or at least suggesting that an "acceptable ratio" of each in unneeded. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think common sense is needed, case by case. Ultimately I am proposing this because I see preventing editors from adding red links to nav templates as lessening our potential growth as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. B: "Did you even bother to read the proposal?" Affirmative, Dr. B, I did. I'm a regular participant in TfD discussions, and I know from experience that the problem is not what you describe. I also recognize several of the participants in this discussion as editors who believe that an anything-goes approach to navboxes would be appropriate, including some of the "support" comments above, as well as one editor who is overly enthusiastic in his interpretation and enforcement of the existing guideline. There must remain a common-sense rule of thumb pursuant to which there are (a) a minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles (not redirects or section links to the same article), and (b) a majority of the links in any given navbox also must be blue links as described. That serves the purpose of WP:NAVBOX while exercising common sense with a dash of WP:IAR. That's been the effective interpretation for the five years I have participated in TfDs.

Dr. B: "I think common sense is needed, case by case." I could not agree with you more. Common sense is required, but emasculating the existing standard to permit red links to predominate any given navbox is a very bad idea. At its core, this is a content dispute that threatens to gut our existing guideline. If you have a particular navbox with at least three blue links and at least half of the total links are blue, and you feel that Robsinden or any other editor is targeting said navbox with a measure of over-enthusiasm, ping me. I think you will find me ready, willing and determined to apply the common-sense standard you advocate above. And that can be done within the existing language of the guideline. That also assumes that the navbox's red link topics are arguably notable per WP:N or other specific notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Ultimately I am proposing this because I see preventing editors from adding red links to nav templates as lessening our potential growth as a resource. That sounds like a behavioral problem that really does not have its root cause in this guideline. Creeping up the instructions won't solve this; the editors removing the redlinks without thinking need to be coached. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Red Herring: How about black links? These are not links at all, but may be useful when the titles in a navbox are part of a series, some have articles and some are very unlikely to get articles. Maybe the guideline should mention the possibility. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Mayors of Smallville

1776–1880

George Washington • Fred Smith • Johann K. McMahon • Joe Who • Abraham Lincoln • What's-his-name • John Doe

• Support: Blofeld has a clear idea, and it is clear that redlinks can outnumber bluelinks, which occasionally will happen. That said, I wonder if it it easier and simply remove the navbox exception to the general policy. While I do agree that a navbox should not be "aspirational" with 90%+ redlinks, a rule like "a navbox must be foo percent bluelinks" isn't really very helpful, encourages the creation of poor-quality stubs just to make links blue, and is just more grounds for spatting. Every template is different; for example, {{The_Boat_Race}} is complete. However, it was not always thus, as User:The Rambling Man can no doubt verify. In contrast, {{KentuckyDerby}} is incomplete and has many red links, but, like the Boat Race, is a topic where each year's event should eventually have an article created; clearly there is some minor progress being made, as it is under half redlinks. But the worst-case scneario is what has happened with {{Belmont Stakes}}, where the Rob Sinden rule appears to be applied; only the very few race articles with articles are even in the template, all bluelinked, yet the race goes back to... 1866- it's 10 years older than the Kentucky Derby! Has the dearth of redlinks in the navbox actually discouraged editors from creating articles? Out of sight, out of mind? Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note – in the {{Belmont Stakes}} Navbox, and least most of the missing articles aren't redlinked – I find that highly preferable to the 'redlinked' alternative... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Side comment: Forcing redlinks into lists only is actually counterproductive and goes against other guidelines, as it leads to redlinks to obscure topics languishing unnoticed; I know of many lists where redlinks are ruthlessly excluded until the article is created, particularly bogus links of "notable residents" to various city and state articles. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I started with one blue link and 160 red links. I ended with 161 blue links. Wikipedia has 158 good articles and 3 featured articles as a result. I'm not suggesting this will always be the case, but the motivation was there, to clear off the red links. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Solid Support -- per Dr. Blofeld and others. I see no reason why red links here cannot be used. Cassianto^Talk 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - to bring it in line with common editing of articles - there is no reason to treat templates differently. And the {{Belmont Stakes}} template is an excellent reason why we SHOULD link redlinks in templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Navboxes already commonly contain redlinks, and I can't see any good argument for stopping this practice. 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. Blofeld's wording seems sesnsible. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected

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)

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

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

Wrong version

The page is in the wrong version. Someone please revert to the correct revision before readdition of text by Robsinden. --TL22 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: per the directions on that page, don't forget to assume malice! VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)