Wikipedia talk:Red link

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red link page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:REDLINK

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 30 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a reply! Pascalulu88 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2025: Double Punctuation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Dealing with red links section, there is a full stop, a note (3), and then a comma. Please remove the full stop before the 3 note. No 2 terminal punctuation in a row, even if divided with a note. Use Visual Editor. This is a protected request, not a confict of interest request. The section is for this edit request, not for trying to request protection. 31.45.47.239 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done No need to specify that its not a request for protection or anything, you did the right method of requesting edits from protected pages. Shadow311 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]