Wikipedia talk:Red link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Searchable list of redlinks[edit]

Some years ago I enquired about whether it would be feasible to create an automated list of redlinks, that would appear much the same as Special:AllPages, except all the entries would be red.

One could peruse the list, and finding that there are, say 20 redlinks for, say, Pope Donald III throughout WP, and having established that they are not vandalism or typos, one could set about creating an article for said Pope Donald III, eliminating 20 redlinks in the process. This would serve a very useful purpose.

I can't find my original proposal, but I remember it being knocked on the head immediately as being beyond the capacity of the system at that time. Have things marched on, technologically speaking? Is this now a goer? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: - in case you're still wondering, there is Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles, but as far as I can tell it's manually updated, and not done very frequently. ansh666 21:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does this apply?[edit]

I just closed a CfD or seven where WP:REDNOT was mentioned as a reason to keep user categories that didn't meet WP:USERCAT, and reading through the usercat debates shows this to be a main argument. However, being a newcomer to the debate, it seems to me that this is at odds with what the guideline actually says, since all of the language points specifically to links in "articles" - i.e. mainspace - and not "pages" - i.e. other places like user pages or project pages. This raises several questions: is this language intentional or not; if not intentional, should the guideline be expanded to include other namespaces; and if intentional, what and where should our stance on redlinks in other namespaces be (if I'm not blind and it's already somewhere else, that is)? ansh666 21:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I would propose changing the line "An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." in the guideline to "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." Keeping redlinks in any namespace is not useful for the same reasons it is not useful for article space. VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a landmine of a proposal in response to an innocent question. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That could be a solution of sorts to the usercat stuff (though I wouldn't be too optimistic), but it still doesn't address the main question. ansh666 19:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Before we talk about proposed language, we first need to reach consensus on the more basic question: whether the guideline is intended to apply to redlinked cats in all spaces, or just in article space? I think we can assume that VegaDark thinks it should apply to all pages. What about everyone else? Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing the rationale for the encyclopedic usefulness of keeping redlinked categories (in any namespace) from those that feel there is such a benefit. To argue against my proposed change is to argue there is such a benefit, no? VegaDark (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not just talking about categories, just like this guideline isn't just about categories. ansh666 22:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
True, but my proposed edit above solely changes a section on categories. I guess I'm not seeing the value in being preoccupied with whether or not the current guildeline could cover these pages, rather than discussing if this guideline should cover these pages. VegaDark (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with VegaDark, with a small edit: "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists." A category is a feature of the MediaWiki software and exists if it is populated, regardless of whether an actual category page (i.e. the page containing the description, etc.) exists. The category page is just the face of the actual category. In this context, WP:REDNOT is an extremely poor (and tautological) reason to keep a category, since it merely states that a category that should exist (i.e. should be populated) should have a corresponding category page. It completely fails to address the central question of a CfD, which is whether the category itself should exist (not just the category page). Quite simply, there is no reason to keep a page in a red-link category—either the category should exist and should be created, or it shouldn't exist and the page should be recategorized. (@Ansh666: If you sense any frustration in my response, please know that none of it is directed toward you—on the contrary, I appreciate your attention to the stale discussions. My frustration lies with the small handful of editors who persistently (and sometimes aggressively) refuse to respect the result of CfDs that affects a category on their user page.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change, if nothing else at least to reinvigorate this discussion. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's time to replace the driving in Madagascar red link before it's no longer red.[edit]

See here for the push to create it. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems red to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's because it's create-protected...because of its use as an example redlink on this page, which is preventing the creation of a (probably) valid redirect. ansh666 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)