Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 20 June 2012

WP:REDNOT

This policy does not apply here. It says: "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created." There is no reason to believe that articles about Supreme Court cases will likely never be created. Articles about Supreme Court cases, for all areas of law, and all eras, are created every day. There is an entire WikiProject devoted to this effort, and no such article has ever been deleted as non-notable. While red-links are sometimes omitted from navboxes, WP:REDNOT has an explicit exception. "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set." These articles are part of a set, namely the set of Supreme Court cases that apply the Due Process Clause to criminal proceedings. That some sub-set happens to be entirely empty is irrelevant (just as, in a list of all presidential elections in a country, it would be irrelevant that one particular decade or century was all red). The red links are necessary to give the reader the context of the full set. It is misleading to omit the entire sub-set from the set. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Redlinks encourage article creation. They are not a cancer to be eliminated for mere aesthetic reasons. Savidan 20:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates are navigation tools for going from one article to another. How can from one article to another when the the article don't exist?

There is no source for these cases being a series. What they are cases you feel should be grouped together. Well that's your belief, not fact....William 23:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Both lists and templates may and often should contain articles that do not exist yet, for the purposes of completeness. The grouping of these cases is based on relatively objective criteria. The fact that they are (1) criminal cases, (2) that interpret the Due Process Clause are relatively objective facts that are easy to verify and not subject to any reasonable dispute. You can find the citations for the cases at List of United States Supreme Court cases involving constitutional criminal procedure, on which this template is based. Savidan 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

'should contain' is your opinion again. I am not saying they don't exist, but what says these belong as a group other than you? The USSC has handed down rulings for over 200 years, are these the only cases in the field? I'm sure they aren't, so they've been selected....William 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The intent is to be comprehensive. If anyone finds any others, they are free to add. Judging by EncMstr's examples below, it appears your view is not supported by the policy, and you should attempt to change the practice in a more centralized place, not on this template specifically. Savidan 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Savidan. Navigation templates serve several purposes: navigation, categorization, organization, context, binding like articles, and highlighting articles needing to be written. Here are some prime examples:

Notice how clearly these indicate what is left to be done. —EncMstr (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument....William 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"OSE" is not my argument. My first point was showing good use of redlinks.

Redlinks to unlikely articles are discouraged per WP:REDLINK. Redlinks to likely articles are encouraged per WP:REDLINK.

Redlinks are unacceptable in an article's See also section. But they are acceptable even in disambiguation pages in several cases. There are also set indexes which are perhaps most similar to a navbox template. —EncMstr (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete my replies

See here. Deleting someone else's comments is certainly improper behavior. Deleting your own is also somewhat questionable. Savidan 23:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It was an accident and I deleted something I wrote too. You missed something again. An edit summary.'