Wikipedia talk:Red link

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)