Wikipedia talk:Red link

I think this should be deleted.

I personally think this should not exist or that it should be changed to red links not being allowed because I have seen several pages that have red links and no one has gone through and created the pages in fact I am pretty sure there are ones that have been like that for a long time and then you allow people to think it's okay to post them on current articles that are being worked on to become GA status like Pokémon Black and White. I have never until that page had anyone complain and make a big deal over such a stupid issue as removing a non-existing link that I am sure will never be made. If he felt so strongly about it why doesn't he make the page then add the link right? Otherwise it will just sit there and rot and I will go through again and remove it but he'll come back and make a big deal about it and for what? A page that does not and may not exist because of this stupid page? Yeah, this causes editwars and should be either removed or the rules changed to where they are not allowed due to so many articles containing red links for years and no one has created a page for them and to stop stupid editwars like the one that could happen over this stupid issue. Thanks! Swifty*^talk 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mimd changing the rules. Let's make it a rule that if you remove the same red link more than one time, you get blocked for a month. Would that work for you? It would work for me: no more stupid edit wars over red links.

It sounds like you've got a different problem, though: It sounds like someone is making up his own rules for what a Good article is. Have a look at the actual WP:GA criteria. You won't find any rule that requires the removal of red links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

There is a dispute about this policy at Template talk:Criminal due process. Comments from users familiar with this policy would be welcome. Savidan 23:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy question - red links

To what extent is the creation of red-links either a) vandalism, or b) counter to "over linking" as currently defined?

This is part of an on-going dispute I am attempting to resolve. With thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 21:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Red link dispute resolution

If a dispute arises as to the reasonableness of a red link's article being created in the future, what resolution process would you recommend? What if there is a list article with many red links? Jojalozzo 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You might try WP:RFC. The fact that there are many redlinks in a given page is not, in itself, a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good approach if we'd can get enough informed outside opinion. I understand red links are fine and they serve an important purpose but some list articles have a link for every entry suggesting that little consideration was given to the reasonableness of an article being created for them. Jojalozzo 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the default color weren't RED nobody would care how many red links there were

The red color is essential to people's dislike of these links, and their desire to be rid of them. Do you really care how many blue vs. light blue links there are? No. Red links beg to be "fixed" since red is the color of emergency. But my perennial proposal [1] that some other default color be chosen, always meets the same people who say "Everthing is fine the way it is. Don't fix what isn't broken." So I propose that that should be the answer to people who have red link disputes, also. Everything is fine. It doesn't matter how many there are. People don't mind looking at them. If you think otherwise, clearly you are crazy. Don't fix what's not broke. SBHarris 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"The red colour is essential to people's dislike of these links, and their desire to be rid of them." This is precisely why we keep it red. —WFC— 01:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad reason. Since WP is a work perpetually in progress (see WP:NOTFINISHED) there should be no pressure created over parts of it that aren't done. It will always have parts that aren't done, no matter what color these links are, and their color will not change the fact that a healthy fraction of links don't go anywhere at any given time. These non-working links are the buds of new growth, and it's incredibly stupid to make them color of blood and wounds and inflammation. All it does is make people angry, and do irrational things to get rid of these red links, like write useless stubs, or remove link brackets, and all manner of unhelpful stuff. Last but not least, their very presense, though healthy, encourages arguments merely because the color is irritating. Perhaps the color has even convinced you to have your view of them, which is wrong. The solution is not to use an irritating color for these healthy links. Why is that so hard to see? SBHarris 01:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The crux of your argument appears to be that you [Sbharris] are right and those who disagree are "wrong" and "crazy", while simultaneously arguing that people will act more intelligently and/or conservatively if we change the colour. Although it is of course your right to do as you see fit, I would suggest that you will need more persuasive points to convince others.

I will spend a bit of time on this though, so that I can at least hold my head up and say that I tried. Let's say for arguments' sake that I accept that a change in link colour would make people less inclined to create bad stubs – I'm sure we both agree that there are stubs out there which are as bad as or worse than nothing. What is that achieving? The answer is not to take steps to reduce article creation, it is to ensure that promising articles get developed, that articles with no potential get deleted, redirected, or merged into broader ones, and that articles which probably shouldn't exist are not red-(or any other colour-)linked in the first place. —WFC— 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and all of that takes time, since it represents a fair amount of work that volunteers may have to save up (or time for the right volunteer to happen by). Which is why a link-that-goes-nowhere should be marked as an invitation to create a decent stub (one that has more information than the original red-link implied) or an article, merge, or redirect (occasionally, removing the link is the answer-- all this is discussed on the page for which this is the TALK). But this invitation to do something should be an invitation, not a red flagged demand for action. Red is a color that suggests that this task (whatever it is), is some kind of WP emergency. We want a color that does not makes people ask "where's the fire?" It should not be a color that makes people uncomfortable to gaze at, in the meantime. The unwanted associations that come with default-red would suggest that this "invitational marker color" for dead internal links could/should be literally anything but red. Even orange would be better. Though personally I like green, any change from the present would be an improvement. That is the crux of my argument. The idea that people are crazy if they think our present default-red is great, when it's quite obviously causing problems (see this entire page), is merely a corollary to my other reasoning. Feel free to refute it with your good reasons in opposition. If you're not crazy and there's something here I'm missing, feel free to remind or enlighten me. SBHarris 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think WFC has a decent point that merits discussion and shouldn't be ignored on the "it's fine" argument. If you look around the web, you'll see very few respected websites using red text for anything other than extremely important messages. On Gmail, red is reserved for messages that someone in Ukraine accessed your account. On a Mac computer, the status symbols in the top-right are always black unless something needs immediate attention (such as the battery is almost dead). So, I don't think red is the best color for article-less links. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite general. Coincidentally in the news today is a funny and whimsical science study that found that people on a diet eat less food (and thus fewer calories) if they are required to do it off a red colored plate! It's a color that seems designed to turn off your parasympathetic nervous system (feeding and fooling around) and turn on your sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight). We've all seen the fights and flights right here on WP. It's silly to encourage that, for this. SBHarris 02:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree they should be changed a different color. Dream Focus 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Red links to names

The page says not to create red links to personal names since someone might create an article about someone else with the same name. I suggest we revise the text to say "red links to personal names should include a disambiguator (for example, not George Smith, but George Smith (actor)). Without this disambiguator, there a high risk that someone will create an article about a different person with the same name, making the link you created incorrect." Ego White Tray (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that by simply applying this practice to name links that do not have disambiguators, the majority of the problem would still be avoided. However I'm reluctant to support this change because there is still room for problems, albeit a much smaller chance, but also because it still does not address the issue of notability. While that facet is not BLP-specific, it's common enough for red link names to be added to lists of notable persons. If they are a red link, they aren't worthy of noting on such lists. BigNate37_(T) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as lists of persons, a lot of times names need to be there for completeness. Examples are list of results in sports events. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a different scenario from lists of notable persons, and in those cases the list itself is content, rather than (primarily) a list of links to content. In those cases, where an article does not exist for an athlete but the name should appear because of the nature of the list, the name should simply be left unlinked. In fact sometimes redirects are made and pointed at places like that to discourage article creation for names which merit inclusion in some article, but are not notable enough in and of themselves to be the subject of their own article (off the top of my head I can't recall if/where this is encoded in guidelines, but it's common practice at RfD). The only exception should be when it is patently obvious that the athlete is already notable, and the fact we do not have an article for them is a glaring omission, and even then there is a significant risk that the red link won't be the exact title of the article-to-be. Part of the work of creating a new article is searching to see where it should be linked from, and presumptive pre-linking is unhelpful the large majority of the time.

Anyways, don't feel like you need to win me over. I'm sharing my thoughts based on spillover from the David Hallet RfD moreso than opposing guideline changes here. It's a sticky problem with no perfect solution in an area of guidelines where best practices are frequently ignored. Your change would make the guideline less "right" but closer to "common practice" which if anything means it's supported by consensus more than the current form. BigNate37_(T) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Option to use questions marks still available?

According to Notes:

• Using user preferences, a user can format red links so that they instead show up as question marks. This option is under my preferences → Appearance → Advanced options.
  • Example: question marks?

Is this still the case? I didn't see the option. SmallRepair (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"solely"? or perhaps some other fix?

I recently ran across this guideline from an AFD for the List of Rhododendron species. Having gone thru that AFD, I now feel that this guideline is a bit confusingly worded. So, for instance, it says not to use a list of red links as an article creation guide. I think it might more clearly state that a list of red links should not be exist solely as an article creation guide, and must have independent notability of its own (see list-purpose criteria). My understanding on re-reading this several times now is that perhaps the preferred approach would be to have the list but in plain-text, and only add in the links as you write the linked article.

I'm not sure I agree with that approach -- if the list has independent notability, why not let it also have an "article creation guide" function?

Anyway, just raising it, because frankly, I found the guideline to be outright confusing as to its intended guidance. But if someone else is working on it already, or has a strong opinion, I'd rather hear it here before I start tinkering. --Lquilter (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a good idea. WP:REDLINK currently says "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first." But some comprehensive list articles do have many redlinks, and some might view them as using those redlinks as an article creation guide. But later the guideline says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions....," which is essentially encouraging the use of redlinks as a guide to new article creation. So adding "solely" would help to make it more clear. First Light (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to spell it out a little more clearly. If one of you thinks of an even clearer way to say it, please try to WP:BOLDly improve this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks. First Light (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's helpful. ... I'm a little less BOLD on guidelines and so forth than on article content, especially if it's not something I feel particularly knowledgeable about. But I'll add this one to my keep-an-eye-on list and will certainly be bold(er) in the future if the language doesn't seem to be working for all. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Red links are ugly

I think we should get rid of red links. They are ugly. If a page is created then it is a simple matter to search for the phrase and add pretty blue links to other pages at the time. Woz2 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look upward. Every time we propose changing the color of redlinks because they are ugly, we get spate of people who disagree and apparently like them. Your complaint is therefore a perennial complaint (or, if you will, a WP:perennial proposal). I agree with you, however, and I think most people do. Those other people who would apparently die if redlinks were made green, are mostly reactionaries. SBHarris 03:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misread what Woz2 is saying. To me it reads that the only links we should have in articles are blue links. I think they want to unlink all redlinks and then when the article is created find appropriate places where the article should be linked and link it. GB fan 11:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the "they are ugly"? If Woz2 didn't dislike the color, he wouldn't be in such a hurry to find a way not to look at it (his proposal is basically to ignore the whole idea of redlinks). Or did you assume he meant there was something ELSE about them, besides their color, that was ugly? If so, what would that thing be, since their color is all that makes them different from any other link? SBHarris 03:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Issue

It says red links should be kept in case the article is created in future ect ect. But there is a strong likely hood that, the article already exists or could be created under a slightly different name, which would still involved editing the page to correct the link. So is there a need to leave as many red links as is currently out there?

Just an idea really but it seems to slightly defeat the point. Although admittedly it could be left as a guide but it is very subjective as it is only there for what someone thinks should or could be an article in future where very easily someone else could think very differently.

And lastly they could/can be more confusing to people who do not fully understand wikipedia and what they mean.

Mark999 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Personal Name"

What is the definition of a "Personal Name" within the context of Wikipedia? I myself have interpreted it as a name that reflects a person(s) within a BLP Article who is not notable i.e. a boyfriend/girlfriend/non notable children etc and not acting professionals usually shown in infoboxes and cast lists. Any light that could be spread on this would be great. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) - Please note, original comment has been changed for clarification. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's the given name(s) of a person. The policy could be different within Wikipedia, however. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah that is a given as everyone's names are personal. I am referring to personal names of people who may not be or ever likely to be notable enough for their own page, like the names of say Obamas children. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You should probably look here. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I interpret this as a caution to be extremely careful about creating red links to potential biographies of living people. Wikipedia is sensitive about BLPs because of the potential harm that can be done to an individual and the related libel risk. I believe the concern is due to the high risk of ambiguity with personal names. If you create a red link to John Doe (I), and somebody else writes an article about a different John Doe (II) who is a serial killer, your red link will turn blue, but will lead to a biography of a different person. This could lead someone to conclude that John Doe I is a serial killer, which could be embarrassing and hurtful for John Doe I. Pburka (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

But surely that is no reason for their exclusion when they are actors/professionals within the context of a TV series...say Orphan Black -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You have no guarantee that an article created in the future that matches your red links will actually be for that same actor. That's the whole problem. Personal names are rarely unique and unambiguous. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See also #Red links to names above. For the definition, see wikt:personal name, which says "A proper name identifying an individual person, especially the full name." I don't think that the definition is any different "within the context of Wikipedia." The term "personal name" just occurs once in this guideline:

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. 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. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people.

The key point is that any name is potentially the name of a living person. Whether that person is notable or not is irrelevant. Now maybe you can get away with red-linking a personal name in an infobox or cast list of actors, if it's only done in a positive manner as regards personal reputation, and if (not likely, I'd guess) the actor is well-known already, but somehow in spite of that, doesn't have a Wikipedia article on them yet. Try searching for the name(s) in other articles, maybe you'll find a link under a nickname or a different spelling. If the actor is obscure, such as these names you want to link, the risk of harm to reputations is pretty negligible, so you might get away with red-linking them, although this editing guideline says that "should be avoided." Note that this issue is not strictly about our BLP articles, it applies to any article on Wikipedia. Just the opinion of a non-involved editor, who you solicited an opinion from on my talk page. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This raises the point about how best to link a person who, in the English WIkipedia is not sufficiently notable their own article, but who is sufficiently notable in a foreign language Wikipedia. This can happen in articles that are related to the foreign language - for example, the winner of the first Elfstedentocht (Dutch eleven cities skating race) has an entry in the Dutch Wikipedia, but a red link in the English Wikipedia. In accordance with the above discussion, which is best: Minne Hoekstra^(NL) or Minne Hoekstra^(nl)? On the former, you should click the "NL" to see his entry on the Dutch Wikipedia while on the latter, clicking his name will take you to the Dutch Wikipedia (the superscripted "nl" tells you that this is a Dutch redirect).

Martinvl (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Either one works, because there is a (foreign language) link to an article on a specific person, hence no chance for identity confusion. I'd say, if you think the person should have an English article, and want to encourage others to create one, use the version with the red link. If you think that the person is barely notable for the English Wikipedia, and there is limited interest in an English article, use the second version. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see a red link with a foreign superscript link in parenthesis. More data is conveyed that way. Making the name a link to the other article doesn't tell us that we don't currently have an article about the person, whereas a red link does. If we later DO get an article about a foreign language person, a red link would automatically update and provide that link, whereas a foreign link would not. It is harder to detect what wholes we have, and what holes are filled, without valuable red links. Ranze (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd agree with Pburka above. This is about reducing the risk of introducing links to the wrong article. It applies equally well to actors as they do not have a unique name, so to take an example from Orphan Black they may well be more than one Kevin Hanchard. If you think Kevin Hanchard the actor is notable enough to have a Wiki article, create it - then go and look for other articles to link it to, not the other way round. If you redlink his name in every Tv show he's ever been in and another editor comes along and creates an article on a politician called Kevin Hanchard, and doesn't realise it may need to be disambiguated or links checked then you've just given both people a different history. If everybody was punctilious about checking incoming links in new articles, this wouldn't be a problem but they're not and REDNOT is a risk reduction measure. NtheP (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, and another reason why I agree that Red links to personal names should be avoided. Such problems can be solved, once discovered, by making Kevin Hanchard a disambiguation, and forcing all links to be updated to either Kevin Hanchard (actor) or Kevin Hanchard (politician). – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought - when creating a link to a name that doesn't have an article, always include a disambiguator whether it needs it or not. That way, there's no risk that a link to John Doe (actor) would be confused with John Doe (murderer). When making the article, make the disambiguated name a redirect if it wasn't actually needed. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How about John Wilkes Booth? Anyway, I've seen a lot of red links with such disambiguators. Sometimes I'm surprised there isn't actually an article for someone fairly well known and on searching find there is one, with a different form of name, maybe no disambiguator. Better if the red linker hadn't tried to second guess the article name. Just leave it text and if the article is created the editor who does so can search and link appropriately. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)