Misplaced Pages

talk:Red link: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:25, 30 April 2015 editKraxler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,578 edits →query← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:30, 12 January 2025 edit undoPascalulu88 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,230 edits →Micromanaging red links: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{talk header|WT:REDLINK}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(90d) |algo=old(30d)
|archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Red link/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Red link/Archive %(counter)d
|counter=3 |counter=7
|maxarchivesize=100K |maxarchivesize=100K
|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft=4 |minthreadsleft=4
|minthreadstoarchive=1 |minthreadstoarchive=2
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}


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


@] the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a ] in which we ] the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).
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:
<blockquote>
"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 ]."
</blockquote>


Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of ]" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on ] or ]". ] (]) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
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 ]. 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 ] and join the discussion. --] (]) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote ] to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for ] apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section ] discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? ] (]) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
::Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or ]); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will ''correctly'' link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates ] when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick ] as to pick ]. ] (]) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it <s>less</s> '''more''' likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".<br>
:::However, condition #2 in ] says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "''{{tq|How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link.}}''" To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. ] (]) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I meant ''less'' likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it ''less'' likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to ]. Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
::::For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the <u>non-BLP</u> subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? ] (]) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::'''Note:''' I have reverted the ] section to the previous version that was available on {{oldid|Misplaced Pages:Red link|1210073703|24 February 2024 }}. ] (]) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


== Red user name ==
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 ] and sometimes in ] or ]. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not ] in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider '']'', or to use ] or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."


I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. ] (]) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see the conflict or why the text needed to be 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 ], signifies a link to a page that is either non-existent or ]. 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 ] and ]." We should only create redlinks for WP:Notable topics that are likely to have viable Misplaced Pages articles. Like WP:Notable states, not all WP:Notable topics need a Misplaced Pages article; some fit well in an existing article. ] (]) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


:Perhaps the user in question was using a custom signature. If you can point to a specific example, I could look at it an confirm. -- ] (]) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (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 ], since that policy only applies to Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


== Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-) ==
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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Given what we say about "One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Misplaced Pages 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 ]. ] (]) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


The current text says:
{{outdent}}
:''In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject.''


I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.
], do you have anything to state regarding what I stated above? What ] (BMK) stated above? There should be something advising editors not to unnecessarily overlink when it comes to red links, similar to the ] 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." ] (]) 20:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --] (]) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
== Personal names ==


:Add after that sentence something like: ''Red links should follow the same ] as blue links with a term being linked no more than ] and with care ].'' ] (]) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
"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."
::Is this a significant problem? Do we have people seriously arguing that this sentence overrules ] or other rules? If not, then adding anything is ]. ] (]) 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Use of ifexist series template ==
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] vs , 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? --] (]) 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. ''']''' (]) 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 ]. 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. ] | ] 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. ''']''' (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] page, where people were adding in their enemies without any context. This was a bluelink problem: Jimmy Wales was on the ] 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 ] should lead to a disambiguation page, and almost all already do. --] (]) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


In , {{u|JPxG}} added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how ''not'' to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create ], the page would then read
Instead of listing all the bad things like sex worker and rapists, we just need to comply with BLP.
:{{xt|An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, since an article on Corruption in Northern Ireland exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world",...}}
<blockquote>
Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page ] encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. ''']'''] 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Caution should be used when creating a redlink to a person's name. All the rules that apply to ] 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 ].
</blockquote> --] (]) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


== Micromanaging red links ==
{{Outdent}}


Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research?
], ] and ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. ] (]) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (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." ] (]) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) :If you see someone removing a red link for an article you think should be created, it's probably best to revert the remove with a polite edit summary, or start a discussion with them on the article talk page or their user talk page. Or you could create a stub article and make a blue link. -- ] (]) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks! I am going to try to write an article on ]. He has a bibliography of significant translations, well-received by critics, from Russian, including works by Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, Merezhkovsky, Bunin etc. published by Knopf and other reputable publishers. ] (]) 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Basically all of our policies boil down to us having links to notable subjects. We don't simply remove them because that article doesn't yet exist.
==Changes==
:::A polite revert is usually sensible (provided they are clearly notable). '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: This sentence makes no sense: "But in many cases, a bit more responsibility for creating a red link should be taken to ensure the red link is entirely proper." I sounds like it was written in English, translated into Finnish, then back into English. The previous few sentences explain creating a redlink only for notable things. This is not needed, the previous part explains the rules perfectly without an added caution in poor English. --] (]) 06:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for a reply! ] (]) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== query ==

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

Note ] 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? ] (]) 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 ] from 1982 to 2009." I haven't done that now so as not to destroy the example. ] (]) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::Except ] is in fact creating those very articles in chronological order, so it is best to keep them. See for instance ] 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 ] from 1982 to 2009", linking to to the session summary is an excellent idea in the body. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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 ]ed... ] (]) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

== mobile Misplaced Pages ==

Please provide more information (in this article) about how en.m.wikipedia.org handles redlinks. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

::], I don't agree with of text you made. Just like the ] section, ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles.

::I will likely start a ] on this for input. Generally, I am against significant/huge changes being made to a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline without significant discussion. ] (]) 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.''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 19:33, 29 April 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 Misplaced Pages articles. Some people just hate redlinks in articles that they create. --] (]) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:'''Note''': As seen in the ] section above, I recently commented about this. ] (]) 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

===Clarification of 'likelihood'===
As I recently have had 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

:You can go ahead and mention my username; I don't mind. Yes, I at the ] article. And I stated in that revert, "And how do we know they are ]? 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 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 Misplaced Pages article per what is outlined in the ] section of the WP:Notable guideline. Then we are left with an article on a non-WP:Notable topic or a ] for a topic that will very likely never expand beyond a stub. And, yes, like I stated to you in , if the topic is obscure, it is often the case that it should not have a Misplaced Pages article. Note: I stated "often," not "always." And I know that from several years of editing this site, and seeing various ]s and the like.

:I noted in the ] 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 ] that should typically have ] before any significant changes are made to it. ] (]) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:30, 12 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

BLP rules

@Up the Walls changed the guideline to encourage the removal of red links for living people, and to add some complexity. I don't think that we actually have any pre-existing rules about BLPs (just a telephone game in which we oversimplify and misstate the rules to newer editors, so that they'll do what we want right now).

Obviously, we don't want links where an article shouldn't exist, but that's the same for "shouldn't exist because of WP:BLP1E" as it is for "just not ever going to want a separate article on WhatamIdoing's Gas Station or Right-handed blue-green widgets". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of changing anything. I just rewrote WP:REDBIO to make more it clear. The previous text was confusing because it said that all the rules for WP:BLP apply to redlinks, and that makes no sense. I added the qualifier in the nutshell for the red links to BLPs because that's how I understood the text to read. Do you not agree that the section WP:REDBIO discourages, but not prohibits, red links to BLPs? Up the Walls (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really? That is, they are just as much encouraged and discouraged as non-BLP red links.
Half of REDBIO isn't about red links at all (and probably belongs in BLP or MOS:BIO); it's about creating articles. The first half of REDBIO is about making it less likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article, because nobody pre-disambiguates Tom Mueller when there are no pre-existing articles under that name (because we have a rule against doing so), and even if someone broke that rule and did pre-dab the title, they'd be just as likely to pick Tom Mueller (author) as to pick Tom Mueller (writer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with what you wrote (other than I think you had a typo and you meant to write "The first half of REDBIO is about making it less more likely that a new biography will correctly link to the article".
However, condition #2 in WP:REDBIO says that before creating a red link to a bio of a living person we need to consider "How likely can the person meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link." To me, that reads like "err on the side of not creating a redlink. If you agree that this is the correct interpretation, we should add this as an exception to the nutshell because it's an important exception. Up the Walls (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
No, I meant less likely. The pre-disambiguation system makes it less likely that someone creating an article at its natural, non-disambiguated will be filling in redlinks. Imagine that you make a red link to Alice (expert). Later, someone creates an article about that person at the normal, natural, non-disambiguated name. Your red link will stay red, and their article will be an orphan. If you'd made the red link at the natural name, their article wouldn't be orphaned and your red link would turn blue when they create the article.
For the second point, should editors not equally consider "How likely can the non-BLP subject meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability? If not highly likely, it's better to err on the side of not adding a red link"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: I have reverted the WP:REDBIO section to the previous version that was available on 24 February 2024 . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Red user name

I just came across some talk pages where user names appeared in red. I was under the impression that this occurred when that editor’s page had been removed or blocked; however in this instance there is still an editor’s page connected to that link. I was unable to find reference to user names showing up in red. It would be great if someone who knows what they are doing can add a sentence of two on red user links, and perhaps what the categorical difference is between a red link which connects to an existing user page, and one which doesn’t. Many thanks if anyone passing is able to do this. 49.185.89.67 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the user in question was using a custom signature. If you can point to a specific example, I could look at it an confirm. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Overlinking applies to redlinks too :-)

The current text says:

In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Misplaced Pages should not have any coverage on the subject.

I think that's a decent way of thinking about it, except for one thing: Even if the article will and should be eventually created, you still shouldn't redlink it if the link would be inappropriate as a bluelink. For example, it shouldn't be linked multiple times in the same section, and shouldn't be linked if it's unlikely to be of interest to a user reading the section of prose in which it occurs.

I'm not sure what's the best wording to explain this; thoughts? --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Add after that sentence something like: Red links should follow the same general rules as blue links with a term being linked no more than once per major section and with care in the lead section. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this a significant problem? Do we have people seriously arguing that this sentence overrules WP:OVERLINKING or other rules? If not, then adding anything is WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Use of ifexist series template

In this edit, JPxG added a template designed to reduce the need for edits to this page when the example redlinked article is created (and thus blueified). I think this should not be the route we take in this article for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't actually eliminate the need to edit the page each time the example article is created. The page currently gives an (important) example of how not to blueify a redlink, and the text there doesn't change. For example, if I were to go and create Corruption in Wales, the page would then read

An example of a plausible red link might be to Corruption in Algeria, since an article on Corruption in Northern Ireland exists, and country-specific articles on corruption are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world",...

Clearly, this doesn't make for a readable page; an edit would still be necessary to change "Wales" to "Algeria". My other issue with this template being used is a little more trivial, but it really is fun to have a game of creating the example red linked article. That sort of fun is hard to come by in this sort of project, and a page like this encourages article creation by gameifying it a bit. Curious to hear others' thoughts. AviationFreak💬 01:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Micromanaging red links

Should some editors be so fastidious (one might say "anal," if one were impolite) about removing red links? Is the sight of red letters offensive to the eyes? How is it harmful to the functioning of our encyclopedia to have a red link for someone who MIGHT be notable enough to have at least a stub in light of their connection with some significant film or group of artists or contribution to a notable team effort in scientific research?

I often see red links for people who are more than worthy enough to have an English language article (e.g. Portuguese novelist Joaquim Paço d'Arcos or the well-known translator of Russian literature, admired by Nabokov, B. G. Guerney) but nobody has taken the time yet to write the article. Pascalulu88 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you see someone removing a red link for an article you think should be created, it's probably best to revert the remove with a polite edit summary, or start a discussion with them on the article talk page or their user talk page. Or you could create a stub article and make a blue link. -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I am going to try to write an article on B. G. Guerney. He has a bibliography of significant translations, well-received by critics, from Russian, including works by Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, Merezhkovsky, Bunin etc. published by Knopf and other reputable publishers. Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Basically all of our policies boil down to us having links to notable subjects. We don't simply remove them because that article doesn't yet exist.
A polite revert is usually sensible (provided they are clearly notable). Lee Vilenski 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for a reply! Pascalulu88 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)