This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Red link page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
I attempted to red-link a person that does not have a Wikipedia article, but instead it blue-links to someone else of the same name who does have an article. Is there a workaround? Conjunctio ( talk) 19:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect African eleephant, the canonical example of an extremely unlikely typo here from July 2011 to November 2019, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29 § African eleephant until a consensus is reached. — Cryptic 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
The current text says:
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Red link page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
I attempted to red-link a person that does not have a Wikipedia article, but instead it blue-links to someone else of the same name who does have an article. Is there a workaround? Conjunctio ( talk) 19:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect African eleephant, the canonical example of an extremely unlikely typo here from July 2011 to November 2019, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29 § African eleephant until a consensus is reached. — Cryptic 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
The current text says:
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)