Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I think this should be deleted.

I personally think this should not exist or that it should be changed to red links not being allowed because I have seen several pages that have red links and no one has gone through and created the pages in fact I am pretty sure there are ones that have been like that for a long time and then you allow people to think it's okay to post them on current articles that are being worked on to become GA status like Pokémon Black and White. I have never until that page had anyone complain and make a big deal over such a stupid issue as removing a non-existing link that I am sure will never be made. If he felt so strongly about it why doesn't he make the page then add the link right? Otherwise it will just sit there and rot and I will go through again and remove it but he'll come back and make a big deal about it and for what? A page that does not and may not exist because of this stupid page? Yeah, this causes editwars and should be either removed or the rules changed to where they are not allowed due to so many articles containing red links for years and no one has created a page for them and to stop stupid editwars like the one that could happen over this stupid issue. Thanks! Swifty*^talk 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mimd changing the rules. Let's make it a rule that if you remove the same red link more than one time, you get blocked for a month. Would that work for you? It would work for me: no more stupid edit wars over red links.

It sounds like you've got a different problem, though: It sounds like someone is making up his own rules for what a Good article is. Have a look at the actual WP:GA criteria. You won't find any rule that requires the removal of red links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for input

There is a dispute about this policy at Template talk:Criminal due process. Comments from users familiar with this policy would be welcome. Savidan 23:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Red links to names

The page says not to create red links to personal names since someone might create an article about someone else with the same name. I suggest we revise the text to say "red links to personal names should include a disambiguator (for example, not George Smith, but George Smith (actor)). Without this disambiguator, there a high risk that someone will create an article about a different person with the same name, making the link you created incorrect." Ego White Tray (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that by simply applying this practice to name links that do not have disambiguators, the majority of the problem would still be avoided. However I'm reluctant to support this change because there is still room for problems, albeit a much smaller chance, but also because it still does not address the issue of notability. While that facet is not BLP-specific, it's common enough for red link names to be added to lists of notable persons. If they are a red link, they aren't worthy of noting on such lists. BigNate37_(T) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as lists of persons, a lot of times names need to be there for completeness. Examples are list of results in sports events. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a different scenario from lists of notable persons, and in those cases the list itself is content, rather than (primarily) a list of links to content. In those cases, where an article does not exist for an athlete but the name should appear because of the nature of the list, the name should simply be left unlinked. In fact sometimes redirects are made and pointed at places like that to discourage article creation for names which merit inclusion in some article, but are not notable enough in and of themselves to be the subject of their own article (off the top of my head I can't recall if/where this is encoded in guidelines, but it's common practice at RfD). The only exception should be when it is patently obvious that the athlete is already notable, and the fact we do not have an article for them is a glaring omission, and even then there is a significant risk that the red link won't be the exact title of the article-to-be. Part of the work of creating a new article is searching to see where it should be linked from, and presumptive pre-linking is unhelpful the large majority of the time.

Anyways, don't feel like you need to win me over. I'm sharing my thoughts based on spillover from the David Hallet RfD moreso than opposing guideline changes here. It's a sticky problem with no perfect solution in an area of guidelines where best practices are frequently ignored. Your change would make the guideline less "right" but closer to "common practice" which if anything means it's supported by consensus more than the current form. BigNate37_(T) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"solely"? or perhaps some other fix?

I recently ran across this guideline from an AFD for the List of Rhododendron species. Having gone thru that AFD, I now feel that this guideline is a bit confusingly worded. So, for instance, it says not to use a list of red links as an article creation guide. I think it might more clearly state that a list of red links should not be exist solely as an article creation guide, and must have independent notability of its own (see list-purpose criteria). My understanding on re-reading this several times now is that perhaps the preferred approach would be to have the list but in plain-text, and only add in the links as you write the linked article.

I'm not sure I agree with that approach -- if the list has independent notability, why not let it also have an "article creation guide" function?

Anyway, just raising it, because frankly, I found the guideline to be outright confusing as to its intended guidance. But if someone else is working on it already, or has a strong opinion, I'd rather hear it here before I start tinkering. --Lquilter (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a good idea. WP:REDLINK currently says "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first." But some comprehensive list articles do have many redlinks, and some might view them as using those redlinks as an article creation guide. But later the guideline says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions....," which is essentially encouraging the use of redlinks as a guide to new article creation. So adding "solely" would help to make it more clear. First Light (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to spell it out a little more clearly. If one of you thinks of an even clearer way to say it, please try to WP:BOLDly improve this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks. First Light (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's helpful. ... I'm a little less BOLD on guidelines and so forth than on article content, especially if it's not something I feel particularly knowledgeable about. But I'll add this one to my keep-an-eye-on list and will certainly be bold(er) in the future if the language doesn't seem to be working for all. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Red links are ugly

I think we should get rid of red links. They are ugly. If a page is created then it is a simple matter to search for the phrase and add pretty blue links to other pages at the time. Woz2 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look upward. Every time we propose changing the color of redlinks because they are ugly, we get spate of people who disagree and apparently like them. Your complaint is therefore a perennial complaint (or, if you will, a WP:perennial proposal). I agree with you, however, and I think most people do. Those other people who would apparently die if redlinks were made green, are mostly reactionaries. SBHarris 03:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misread what Woz2 is saying. To me it reads that the only links we should have in articles are blue links. I think they want to unlink all redlinks and then when the article is created find appropriate places where the article should be linked and link it. GB fan 11:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the "they are ugly"? If Woz2 didn't dislike the color, he wouldn't be in such a hurry to find a way not to look at it (his proposal is basically to ignore the whole idea of redlinks). Or did you assume he meant there was something ELSE about them, besides their color, that was ugly? If so, what would that thing be, since their color is all that makes them different from any other link? SBHarris 03:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Personal Name"

What is the definition of a "Personal Name" within the context of Wikipedia? I myself have interpreted it as a name that reflects a person(s) within a BLP Article who is not notable i.e. a boyfriend/girlfriend/non notable children etc and not acting professionals usually shown in infoboxes and cast lists. Any light that could be spread on this would be great. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) - Please note, original comment has been changed for clarification. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's the given name(s) of a person. The policy could be different within Wikipedia, however. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah that is a given as everyone's names are personal. I am referring to personal names of people who may not be or ever likely to be notable enough for their own page, like the names of say Obamas children. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You should probably look here. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I interpret this as a caution to be extremely careful about creating red links to potential biographies of living people. Wikipedia is sensitive about BLPs because of the potential harm that can be done to an individual and the related libel risk. I believe the concern is due to the high risk of ambiguity with personal names. If you create a red link to John Doe (I), and somebody else writes an article about a different John Doe (II) who is a serial killer, your red link will turn blue, but will lead to a biography of a different person. This could lead someone to conclude that John Doe I is a serial killer, which could be embarrassing and hurtful for John Doe I. Pburka (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

But surely that is no reason for their exclusion when they are actors/professionals within the context of a TV series...say Orphan Black -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You have no guarantee that an article created in the future that matches your red links will actually be for that same actor. That's the whole problem. Personal names are rarely unique and unambiguous. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See also #Red links to names above. For the definition, see wikt:personal name, which says "A proper name identifying an individual person, especially the full name." I don't think that the definition is any different "within the context of Wikipedia." The term "personal name" just occurs once in this guideline:

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. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people.

The key point is that any name is potentially the name of a living person. Whether that person is notable or not is irrelevant. Now maybe you can get away with red-linking a personal name in an infobox or cast list of actors, if it's only done in a positive manner as regards personal reputation, and if (not likely, I'd guess) the actor is well-known already, but somehow in spite of that, doesn't have a Wikipedia article on them yet. Try searching for the name(s) in other articles, maybe you'll find a link under a nickname or a different spelling. If the actor is obscure, such as these names you want to link, the risk of harm to reputations is pretty negligible, so you might get away with red-linking them, although this editing guideline says that "should be avoided." Note that this issue is not strictly about our BLP articles, it applies to any article on Wikipedia. Just the opinion of a non-involved editor, who you solicited an opinion from on my talk page. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This raises the point about how best to link a person who, in the English WIkipedia is not sufficiently notable their own article, but who is sufficiently notable in a foreign language Wikipedia. This can happen in articles that are related to the foreign language - for example, the winner of the first Elfstedentocht (Dutch eleven cities skating race) has an entry in the Dutch Wikipedia, but a red link in the English Wikipedia. In accordance with the above discussion, which is best: Minne Hoekstra^(NL) or Minne Hoekstra^(nl)? On the former, you should click the "NL" to see his entry on the Dutch Wikipedia while on the latter, clicking his name will take you to the Dutch Wikipedia (the superscripted "nl" tells you that this is a Dutch redirect).

Martinvl (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Either one works, because there is a (foreign language) link to an article on a specific person, hence no chance for identity confusion. I'd say, if you think the person should have an English article, and want to encourage others to create one, use the version with the red link. If you think that the person is barely notable for the English Wikipedia, and there is limited interest in an English article, use the second version. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see a red link with a foreign superscript link in parenthesis. More data is conveyed that way. Making the name a link to the other article doesn't tell us that we don't currently have an article about the person, whereas a red link does. If we later DO get an article about a foreign language person, a red link would automatically update and provide that link, whereas a foreign link would not. It is harder to detect what wholes we have, and what holes are filled, without valuable red links. Ranze (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Suppose that in the next FIFA World Cup, the Golden Ball award was made to a hitherto unknown Dutch player by the name of Minnie Hoekstra, he would certainly warrant a Wikipedia article. Unless great care is exercised, the skater and the footballer would probably link to each other. This means creating a dummy article for the skater. Given the introduction of Wikidata, I see no problem in principal of a Bot checking cross-Wiki links at the same time as it checks brackets. In this case, it would go to the page in Wikidata that contains a link to nl:Minnie Hoekstra and send the last editor of Elfstedentocht a message if the Wikidata page has a link to an article in :en: space. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd agree with Pburka above. This is about reducing the risk of introducing links to the wrong article. It applies equally well to actors as they do not have a unique name, so to take an example from Orphan Black they may well be more than one Kevin Hanchard. If you think Kevin Hanchard the actor is notable enough to have a Wiki article, create it - then go and look for other articles to link it to, not the other way round. If you redlink his name in every Tv show he's ever been in and another editor comes along and creates an article on a politician called Kevin Hanchard, and doesn't realise it may need to be disambiguated or links checked then you've just given both people a different history. If everybody was punctilious about checking incoming links in new articles, this wouldn't be a problem but they're not and REDNOT is a risk reduction measure. NtheP (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, and another reason why I agree that Red links to personal names should be avoided. Such problems can be solved, once discovered, by making Kevin Hanchard a disambiguation, and forcing all links to be updated to either Kevin Hanchard (actor) or Kevin Hanchard (politician). – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought - when creating a link to a name that doesn't have an article, always include a disambiguator whether it needs it or not. That way, there's no risk that a link to John Doe (actor) would be confused with John Doe (murderer). When making the article, make the disambiguated name a redirect if it wasn't actually needed. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How about John Wilkes Booth? Anyway, I've seen a lot of red links with such disambiguators. Sometimes I'm surprised there isn't actually an article for someone fairly well known and on searching find there is one, with a different form of name, maybe no disambiguator. Better if the red linker hadn't tried to second guess the article name. Just leave it text and if the article is created the editor who does so can search and link appropriately. Adding a disambig also means that you can't just create a link by adding brackets, you have to code that in the link and then the name. It makes editing tedious and the text that you see when editing less intelligible. And all so you can add a link that doesn't actually go anywhere. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related point, if you'd like to see how popular a name is in the US, look at http://howmanyofme.com/ They estimate that the US might contain more than 40,000 living people named "Robert Smith" (one of the most popular). Just imagine what could happen if you linked to "Robert Smith" in an article. Even relatively uncommon names, like "James Wales" might refer to about 100 people—and that doesn't count anyone outside the US or who wasn't alive as of the last US census, or whose name is actually "Jimmy" rather than "Jim" or "James". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The interesting "personal names" issue is to me just an extreme example of the significant (but unknown) effects of creating red links in general. In general the responsible creation includes 1) the preconception of how an AfD (article for deletion) discussion might conclude based on Wikipedia principles, and 2) the assumption of like-mindedness of content and said defense of that content. Personal names are fringe allowances in the spectrum of allowances, so they have their own section and cautionary rationale. An actors name is the gist of the personal names issue for the same reason the titles of works and actors and pseudonyms can have the same title—civil law.

My opinion of the "disambigutor idea" is that it is worthy of discussion for inclusion in that section to solve (2), since it is in keeping with the spirit of "a list of "considerations" the help page might intend at (1). But as it is the creation of a blue redlink, and so the fringe of red linking policy about the a fringe idea of an an ambiguous title—as far as our boundry could stretch—it should be done only in coordination with WP:Disambiguation. — CpiralCpiral 19:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why having a redlink to an actor should be considered a special case though is that where a bystander gets mentioned in an article it is unlikely they will appear on WP again, but with an actor (if they are any good) they will have further credits as time progresses, and these further entries to additional articles will add to the 'what links here' on the (currently redlinked) target page, assisting an editor in discovering whether there is sufficient information to create an article about them. By the way, actor's names are usually unique - within their country at least - due to rules enforced by registration bodies such as Equity in America, Canada and the UK. Also, someone creating a new article should be checking the links are for the same individual anyway; its part of being a WP editor! --AlisonW (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The red link isn't "to an actor". It's to nothing. That's what a red link is. One of the "actor" red links removed was for a 9-10 year old girl. She may not act again, she may become a star. She's not notable now for one role. Creating an "actor" link for her and enforcing it to remain forever just because of this one role (which is what MisterShiney wants to do, by the several times he reverted this), would be good for Wikipedia? How? Your suggestion implicitly assumes that every actor is, or will become, notable. But that isn't true, and many actors disappear from the business after one or a few appearances. Most of those red links would remain red forever, or worse, point to a different person. Actors' names are not unique, even among other actors and certainly in the world. It is very easy to do a text search for a name, linked or not. Using red links, even worse enforcing clumsy disambiguated "John Smith (actor)" red links, which is what you are implying we should do, would just be a pain in the butt for everyone who edits that text and serves only to mollify those who think that if some names in a list are linked, then they all must be for some reason. Wikipedia isn't a register of every trivial role by every minor actor. IMDB does that. Anyone creating a new actor article will start with IMDB, verify the roles, do a WP text search, link any appearances here, look for the actor's own website and check their bio. Having a bunch of red links to some version of their name doesn't help this. 202.81.243.184 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Red links should not be made [...] to deleted articles

"Red links should not be made [...] to deleted articles" doesn't seem quite right. Wouldn't it depend on the reason for deletion? It could be that an article about a notable topic was deleted for some reason (such as being pure vandalism, to use an extreme example) that doesn't prejudge against recreation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Option to use questions marks still available?

According to Notes:

• Using user preferences, a user can format red links so that they instead show up as question marks. This option is under my preferences → Appearance → Advanced options.
  • Example: question marks?

Is this still the case? I didn't see the option. SmallRepair (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for the note; I've removed it. Graham87 04:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Lists and other articles"

What on earth is "other articles" supposed to mean? I've [[boldly clarified it per the essay at Wikipedia:Write the article first. Feel free to revert and discuss. Graham87 04:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It refers to pages such as List of vegetarians or disambiguation pages and other pages. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Which, I assume, are covered by the text in the previous sentence: "Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates"? Hence my use of the phrase "these pages". If I don't receive any substantive objections in the next 24 hours, I'm going to change the text back to the way I had it. Graham87 06:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No. That is not how it works. Especially in a policy! You made a Bold Change. It was Reverted. Now you discuss. Considering only one other editor has opposed your view and interpretation of the line, then Wikipedia:STATUSQUO reigns. Which, as an Admin, I would expect you to know and understand. Who are you to decide what a "substantive objection" is? You as an Admin, should know that Wikipedia has may different types of pages/articles, the most popular being Articles, Disambiguation Pages, Templates. There are also Wiki Project pages, Policy Pages, Discussion Pages etc etc. That is what is meant by "other articles" -- MisterShiney ✉ 07:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes very little sense to me. The word "article" is only used to refer to pages in the main namespace; the word "page" is used to refer to pages in all namespaces. It is incongruous that we have a sentence enumerating certain types of pages: "Red links are frequently present ..." and then have the next sentence talking about "other articles". If it were to be changed to "other pages", that would cause this guideline to be applied to the user and talk namespaces, where it isn't generally applicable. I think using the text "these pages" would be the most logical way to fix this quandary.

I don't really understand your objections, but I'll wait for other input now. Graham87 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT

While it seems fairly simple to me, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this, specifically at List of draughts players. The creator of the article insists that red links are fine, because he has sourced them and they would "withstand article creation". This of course is nonsense; if that's true, simply write the article. If someone can't be bothered to write an article or place a submission at AfC, they shouldn't be littering a page with red links. Also note the user's WP:OTHERCRAP argument that because other lists have red links... As this user has plainly stated that he will continue to return the red links "even if it means conflict", I would appreciate some more pairs of eyes. I have no problem with piping links to other-language Wikipedias; I did a few of these myself. WP:REDNOT seems straightforward enough: "don't red-link to personal names". Finally, "See WP:REDLINK for more on this" should not be part of the visible text of any article. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The essay WP:OTHERCRAP is itself a crappy essay, which in fact says two opposite and contadictory things. It nevertheless resists rewrite, as you see on the funny TALK page for it. Do not take it seriously, and do not use it in arguments, unless you understand it. Which, apparently, nobody really does. SBHarris 00:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lists: "Advantages of lists 8. Can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." And on this page In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, Schubert did not compose any people. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That was simply an example in the page and before the "or" referring to red-links. Unless people (even dead ones) are considered to not count as articles anymore. (Is it the living people that's the issue?)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What you're conveniently neglecting to note is that your example explicitly says "ITEMS" (my emphasis). Human beings, living or dead, are not "items". There is no contradiction between WP:REDNOT and the example you offer. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand what I think you're trying to say, but I feel this is a statement on lists and I don't see it saying articles on people are an exception. If you can show what it's saying does not relate to lists of people than you may do so. If you can show "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article" means only terms, and can not include people, feel free to do so. I admit the second does seem plausible to me, but I remain unconvinced the policy says what you think it does.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It says "items". Your analogy is akin to a gentleman feeling free to use the ladies' room because the sign simply says "Women" rather than "No men allowed". Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's discussing lists generally. It seems to me that would include people lists. If it doesn't your interpretation of the current red-link policy could give far too sweeping powers. For extreme examples we wouldn't remove all red-linked people from things like List of chess openings named after people, List of minor planets named after people, List of Governors of Louisiana, List of covers of Time magazine (1920s), List of current foreign ministers, etc. Granted this draughts list isn't like those as it's more open-ended. (You're not removing red-links from List of Draughts World Championship winners, which isn't open-ended) So the open/close ended thing might be the issue. That there's clearly cases where red-linked people can stay on a list is probably not the issue, in the case of close-ended lists, or so I'd hope. I guess we'd need to find a specific thing on lists of people and what you do on red-links if the list is open-ended. Or something that can give us a guide on when notable red-linked people can or can't stay on a list.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Anthony WP:REDNOT does say "Red links to personal names should be avoided". There have been red linked personal names in lists before and articles were created for a criminal of the same name, turning that red link for John Doe the television reporter into a blue link that shows that John Doe is a murderer or worse, and thats a serious WP:BLP issue. The only exception I can think of to this is recent deaths page since those articles are so highly updated and scrutinized, and even then the red links are removed once they've been archived for however long. - SudoGhost 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But I'm speaking of existing red-links. "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." I was returning existing red-links and ultimately limited myself to those who are no longer living. Two of the five red links I'd left on List of draughts players are Robert Stewart (draughts player) and Alfred Jordan (draughts player) (just made his article), which would seem to avoid the issue you mention. Further if red-linked people can't be on lists at all this has pretty dramatic connotations for all lists of people and at least contradicts part of the reason we have lists of people at all.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a list of people is not to have a bunch of red linked entries, removing red linked personal names does not contradict that reason at all. If there isn't an article about a person there needs to be sources included to warrant including them, and even then their personal name should not be red linked. If nothing else, writing a short stub and making sure it's sourced is far preferable to leaving a red link, since that avoids any WP:BLP issue with another editor creating an article of the same name. - SudoGhost 15:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The possibility for expansion is a reason to have lists of people rather than only having categories for people. What you are siting says "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." The only remaining red links on List of draughts players have citations. Further we have things like Category:Wikipedia sports templates with red links that are often templates about people. The arguments here against lists, things that encourage expanding the number of BLPs is too risky, could apply to that too. If lists of people can no longer have any expansion-purposes I will submit, not personally agree mind you, but I don't see how that follows from policy. As I showed what you cite is largely concerned with notability and I'm not defending non-notable red-links on lists.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We simply need a slight policy change that says red links to names of living persons should be avoided, except as such names legitimately occur in lists which automatically and self-evidently confer notability upon their membership (eg. Lists of professional sports players). So moved. Seconded? Vote? SBHarris 19:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're assuming the only option is to either include a red link or include nothing at all, but it's not. The purpose of such lists on Wikipedia is not to expand content on Wikipedia. Years ago yes, but that's not the case now. Even if it were though, such a purpose does not require red linking a personal name. - SudoGhost 22:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The link you gave for the idea that WP has no interest in expansion now that we have a monster 4.2 million articles (LOL) links to a disagreeable personal essay (WP:WTAF) which I happen to disagree with. There is not even a WP guideline to that effect, and certain no policy. It counts as much as my opinion, which as noted, is contrary. The idea that WP is not in need of expansion reminds me of the idea that we should cut back on basic science research because we already know enough. An idea that has been floating around for more than 100 years. Since before penicillin and the transistor, in fact (thinking of one particular TED talk I like). I say hogwash. (Although you might interest me in the idea that there are too many BLPs on Wikipedia, as I do not like them (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I've been overruled, there.)

I see above that you have tried to float the idea that one reason we have lists of people is to avoid having a lot of red links. That is also nether guildline or policy or MoS, though it may be YOUR personal opinion. The guidelineWP:LISTPEOPLE says nothing about redlinks nor any need to balkanize them into lists. It says living people need to added to lists only with proper citation. However, nothing about needed citation for list inclusion need control what color the link is. Indeed, WP:STUB says an ideal stub should have a few sentences and that IS a guideline. Mere fact of correct inclusion in some list (which requires one citation) does not qualify for stub creation. Thus that item or person might very well stay listed but not stubbed, until somebody takes more interest. Again, WP:WTAF is not guideline, but somebody's personal preference, so save it. Many things for which one brief citation of categorization exists, are notable enough on that criterion to belong on a list, yet remain not notable enough (since there is not enough information for a few sentences) to deserve a stub.

Finally, I can't resist your commenting on your (apparently personal) opinion that the purpose of any policy on WP is to avoid a lot of redlinks. I can't imagine anything wrong with a lot of redlinks except possibly their ugly and shocking color. But I've been told multiple times above by certain obstructionist conservative editors that there is nothing wrong with the beautiful present redlink color and no reason to change that color, therefore. So, I refer you to those people above, if you should happen to feel otherwise, and they to you. I have not been able to do anything about the basic problem. SBHarris 00:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no guideline, policy, or essay that I'm aware of that supports red linking personal names in lists, but several things including WP:REDNOT which advise against it. You said I "tried to float the idea that one reason we have lists of people is to avoid having a lot of red links"...I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't know why you indented my comment, as it wasn't in reply to yours at all. While WP:LISTPEOPLE says nothing about red linked personal names, WP:REDNOT very specifically does. I also have no idea where you got the idea that "the purpose of any policy on WP is to avoid a lot of redlinks", as I said nothing to that effect. The only thing that I have said is that personal names should not be red linked as it creates a potential WP:BLP issue, which is a very serious thing, much more serious than simply disagreeing with an essay and which is reflected by this guideline. I did not suggest that Wikipedia is "too large already", only that expansion is not a reason to include red link to a personal name, which can just as easily be presented with a non-wikilink (sourced) entry. - SudoGhost 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're apparently saying "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E" does mean such names can be on lists, just that they can't be bracketed or a red-link. Correct? So should the group remove brackets on things like List of ministers of the environment, or the earlier list I mentioned List of current foreign ministers, to avoid red-links?--T. Anthony (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are not to expand articles on BLPs, or any people as the only ones that I ultimately left on list of draughts players were dead people, then why is there Wikipedia:Project Gutenberg author list or Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people?--T. Anthony (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is against BLPs completely, but WP disagrees. Thus, we only have policy, which is against redlinked and uncited links to "LP"s (living persons). I think very few people care about links to dead people without bios, but there may be some people who think WP is too large already (see above) who would object. To them, I say: WP:NOTPAPER. SBHarris 01:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They apparently care about links to the dead too as those were the only red-links I had at the end, but Sudo had them de-bracketed so they'll no longer be red-links.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect Sudo doesn't like the color, but won't admit that. I will never cease to be amazed at what lengths people will go to, in order to avoid an idea they didn't think of. I think that if redlinks were greenlinks, none of this would be happening. But look at the precedents: EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THE ALLCAP TEXT IS BAD BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING, AND THUS IS DISTRACTING. However, they will not admit this for red lettering on WP. Very strange. But here we are. People viscerally do not like red links but cannot admit why not. SBHarris 02:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's largely incorrect. I can't speak for SG; as far as I'm concerned, while I don't particularly like the color, I would also disapprove of linking to articles that don't exist (about people) if the links were any other color. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suspicions are best kept to yourself given how bizarre and unfounded they are. The color is irrelevant; personal names should not be red linked per WP:BLP and WP:REDNOT. That is the reason, you assuming otherwise means nothing, and red herrings about not liking a color are irrelevant to this discussion. - SudoGhost 03:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think both things can or do imply red-links can be allowed in a list if they are notable and can sustain an article. And that BLP would not apply in cases like Robert Stewart (draughts player)[1] who has been dead over seventy years ago and was clearly marked as a draughts player. Your interpretation still allows for non-articled names to be on lists, but would make it more difficult to complete things like List of multiple Paralympic gold medalists because rather than just clicking on a red-link (as you can on the list now) you'd have to copy the name then bracket it and even when you do that you might find that there's already a bunch of John Morgans and no one on that page is a red-linked swimmer. So you'd have to add " (swimmer)" to get what we already have. And it's unreasonable to expect individuals will now rush out and create the hundreds or thousands of red-linked notable people on existing lists so they'll no longer be red-linked. (Particularly as, in my case, I don't believe I was given any warning before the removals) So the effect or even intent is discouraging, or adding further difficulties, to the creation of new people articles. Some of the first things I did on Wikipedia were red-links I saw on lists like List of jazz pianists. I think Cyrus Chestnut's article being an example. Although you deny that I take it the idea is to discourage, not forbid mind you, the creation of people articles. And I still feel like I need something more solid to believe that say Category:Missing encyclopedic articles (biography) is now basically obsolete because it's a time more to tolerate, rather than encourage, new articles on people. I mean I see the logic of discouraging it, I just don't see that it must follow from policy.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP obviously only talks about the redlinking of names of living people, not dead people. WP:REDNOT says new links of personal names should be avoided, but it doesn't say it's forbidden. Personally I think this section is confused, as all the reasons it gives for avoiding linking personal names apply to reputations, and nobody has ever had a concern about the reputations of dead people on Wikipedia. This section (and obviously nothing in BLP) is the only place that suggests such a concern, and then only very indirectly and without any direct statement. If you added a clarifying sentence: "The reputations of deceased people are also important on Wikipedia, and editors should avoid redlinking their names, also," it would not last (it's too controversial). But that's what you're arguing (if I am not mistaken).

As for dealing with redlinks already in place, that is dealt with in WP:REDDEAL.

Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.

Emphasis mine. Those last three words mean you have no authority to remove a redlinked person in a notable list who is supported by a reference. It doesn't say "existing article AND other reference," it says "existing article OR a reference." No existing article means a redlink, if the name is linked and referenced. Actually, this section gives no authority for ever removing links while keeping a name in place in a list. It only gives a rationale for removing names entirely, and that is because of lack of article or lack of reference. If a reference is in place, this section cannot be used to support leaving the name but simply removing the link brackets. Which is what was done. And all that did was change the color of the dead person's name. SBHarris 03:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither does what you cited give any rationale for keeping the brackets, so that's not really a convincing point. WP:LISTPEOPLE says under certain circumstances to keep the name, WP:REDNOT says the red linked personal name should be removed, removing the brackets satisfies both guidelines and does not contradict WP:REDDEAL, since a personal name is not an "in general" situation, being specifically covered under WP:REDNOT as it is and what you cited does not say the wikilink itself should be retained. - SudoGhost 04:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, and have read your cited articles incorrectly. Contrary to what you write, WP:REDNOT does NOT say red-linked personal names should be removed (let's see you cite that language-- it's just not there). Rather, it says you should "avoid" creating them. There is quite a difference between avoiding creating something, and removing it once somebody else has created it (indeed, enough that there are two sections in this article). The only reason REDNOT doesn't contradict WP:REDDEAL (which controls what to do about links already in place) is that REDNOT advises on creation, and REDDEAL advises on removal. REDDEAL covers lists of personal names in namelists just as specifically as REDNOT (see the last paragraph), and you have absolutely no reason to argue that REDNOT is more specific on the "people issue" than REDDEAL is. What REDDEAL says about personal names that don't have an article, is that the list entries "should be removed" if they have no cite. It does not say "remove their link brackets if they have no cite". It says "Such list entries should be removed" period. That's quite specific. If they do have a cite and are linked, you are not authorized by anything in this essay to merely remove the brackets.

Again REDNOT's statement "This is especially concerning when dealing with living people" is bizarre because the previous sentence (to which "this" presumably refers), says:

Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable.

But this is not likely to be much of a problem for dead football players and dead royal consorts. Or dead anybody, because dead people do not have identifiable concerns, and what they "might consider disreputable" at the present time, is a question outside the law, and certainly outside WP's realm of interest. The sentence before the last sentence in REDNOT doesn't really apply to dead people. The end statement that "This is especially concerning when dealing with living people" therefore must can be read as if placed after ANY problem of concern only to the living. Example:

Aside from the basic misidentification, this practice has led to people waking up in a casket after being buried. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people.

Indeed. But that redundancy cannot be read that it is somewhat concerning even for dead people. That would be stupidity. I'm going to run an RfC on this and see what people say, but on the face of it, this whole REDNOT thing is poorly written, and it is being misused. There was no debate on that last paragraph in REDNOT, and no consensus. If there was to be a debate, it would be rewritten. As it certainly should be. So here is the place to start that process.

• Most missed articles on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles Many of these are real people. For example, Brian Berris is a well known talk show host.
• Executed criminals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_Missouri . Most (but not all) such pages are full of redlinks.
• Sports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NFL_team_rosters

And these are famous players. If you get to junior leagues, the number goes up.

• There are 38 lists of royal consorts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_royal_consorts . Here is one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_consorts_of_Luxembourg. Almost all lists of consorts have redlinked royals.

There is broad prior precedent for redlinked persons in people lists. Before you bring up WP:OSE, let me remind you that the broader the WP precedent, the more that essay argues my case, not yours. And this is VERY broad indeed, with hundreds of articles, and a very large fraction of people-lists containing redlinked persons. WP:OTHERCRAP applies to individual articles like Gambino crime family, not to entire classes of articles with years of precedent, as we have for people lists. SBHarris 23:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate that I, at least broadly, agree with you. I have not reverted Sudo's actions on list of draughts players because on that action at least he/she has backing and is a reviewer. But what she or he at least seems to be saying I find too broad an interpretation that would severely hurt, or is maybe even meant to hurt, the expansion on certain issues. And I'd add on topics that may suffer from systemic bias in coverage, like say List of Vice Presidents of the Dominican Republic or List of Ministers of Education of Egypt. Sure if you take out the brackets the names are still there, but some on the Egyptian one at least share names with existing articles like Tusun Pasha vs the list's Tusun Pasha (minister). Worse the list is the only place you see Tusun Pasha (minister). So if it's gone from the list it's gone and a person will have to think of what to add to differentiate. (Granted they may not mean this applies to "close-ended" lists, the draughts list is "open-ended", but I have mentioned that exemption several times without them agreeing that "yeah that would be different, but your draughts list is open ended so it makes adding bogus red-links too tempting" and to my dismay they've yet to say anything really like that)--T. Anthony (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And I see WP:REDDEAL does say "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information" which as you maybe mentioned directly contradicts their interpretation. (The more I think on it the more I'm really tempted to return the remaining dead people on list of draughts players back to red-links as their case is largely irrelevant to dead people, except for the idea a living person could have the same name as the long dead, and the discussion is basically two to two so there's not a consensus against my interpretation. And the same name issue could be dealt with if I just add "draughts player" to the name of every red-linked player who is deceased. Anyway I probably won't return them to red links though as I'm planning on making them into articles.) Interestingly the majority, or at least sizable minority, of lists in Category:Lists of sportspeople by sport look to maintain red-links that could sustain an article. That might sound like an "other stuff" argument, but what I mean is what I was allowing was fairly standard and is likely how many read the lists of people they were working on. Upside is I think the strict interpretation of REDNOT probably can't be universally done so things like List of women Test cricketers or even List of mayors of Houston will likely remain as is.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue

It says red links should be kept in case the article is created in future ect ect. But there is a strong likely hood that, the article already exists or could be created under a slightly different name, which would still involved editing the page to correct the link. So is there a need to leave as many red links as is currently out there?

Just an idea really but it seems to slightly defeat the point. Although admittedly it could be left as a guide but it is very subjective as it is only there for what someone thinks should or could be an article in future where very easily someone else could think very differently.

And lastly they could/can be more confusing to people who do not fully understand wikipedia and what they mean.

Mark999 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right about red link carrying little actual information about title. Also, you don't see red links with references citing them, so they carry doubtful "reliable source" information. Red links esp. "defeat the point" of their existence when they are a stand-alone list, each of whose items are guaranteed to have notability. Red links are, as you say, subjective. But you leave room for an "objective red link" saying that red links may be misunderstood. I think they always serve well as subject indicators, despite often having no absolute, certain, objective information for title or article.

The way I see it there are two kinds of red links. There is the subjective one having no defensible reason for public existence, an ownership kind that might edit war against the cleanup an aging cleanup red link template. Then there is the objective one that is the mark of a subject matter expert saying that a vast, unmentioned subject exists around the current subject. See WP:outline.

Both do the same thing, but the subjective one has as an object "page" and "wiki", while the objective one has the same objective as all encyclopedias must meet and compete with, that of the subject outline, where subjects are a separable issue from articles, similar to how a disk drive is separable from a volume (computing). It is a source of confusion that one red link could perform both functions, encyclopedic subject and wiki object.

Red links on a wiki then are just public opinions. Being red, they are strong public opinions. Being stagnant they are ugly. Being debated on the talk page they need not be red on the article. Being on a stand-alone list, they need not be red in the list because word placement, context, and font do the same thing. Red links are a new feature of wikis that could find use alongside blue, but I don't see other colors as becoming standard wiki indicators until red ones are standardized.

The page does not address overlinking. The article or subject creation guides that are the editor prerogatives can exist acceptably alongside readership as long as overlinking is clearly defined. Like the rules of thumb concerning the size of an article, this can be difficult to gauge. The page does not even mention {{cleanup red links}}. The page here does not offer some kind of history or theory of red links, but does serve as an outlet for editor prerogatives, seemingly outside much concern for the experience of readers.— CpiralCpiral 20:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum or Redux

I kind-of gave in because I thought Sudo, who now calls him or herself User:Aoidh, "outranked" me. I did not agree to this strict interpretation. Since then I've discovered that Aoidh doesn't seem to outrank me, though looking it up again I'm not as certain. But the narrow understanding of policy seems to so rarely apply that it's a bit difficult for me to see that changing. And there was no real consensus on the discussion. So I brought back the red-links on List of draughts players, but see that might have been premature. Still until we have a clear consensus on this I think it was also premature to remove them.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no "rank" on Wikipedia, and so to be honest I'm unsure why you've created a section about this, but unless you intend to change the wording of WP:REDNOT there's no reason why it wouldn't apply without a very good reason. It's one thing if the red links have been there for years already there and nobody objects to them being there, but when someone challenges them being there you need to either remove the red linked personal names, create the articles if you think they warrant one (which is why a red link would even be created in the first place), or remove the wikilinks around the name itself. - Aoidh (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are levels of authority or respect. Or if there aren't I thought there was. The only reason I allowed the changes you made on list of draughts players is because I thought you had authority over me. The red-links there had been there, in many cases, for years when you and User:Joefromrandb removed them. Indeed I count two or three that had been there since I created the article. And there was not agreement that your interpretation of policy was correct. Because it was an interpretation. Your interpretation of policy is, I think, more often not used than used and not clear from policy. Pick most any Lists of sportspeople and you'll see that or see it by your second or third selection. (From List of American Football League players to List of Wimbledon Open Era champions) And with very little work I found a featured list, List of Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, with red-linked names. I gave in to the effects of your interpretation, while not agreeing, too easily and that bothered me. And it became clearer to me I was right to be bothered.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Red links to personal names should be avoided, that's not an "interpretation", that's exactly what WP:REDNOT says. If you are so concerned about the links, then create the articles that they would link to, since that's the purpose of having such a link. Otherwise, they should be avoided, and they can very easily be avoided here. Saying that "we shouldn't encourage new articles on people" is absurd; address what's being said, don't try to use red herrings to argue your points. I checked out the articles you linked, where was the use (or not) of red linked personal names discussed for those articles? If there wasn't any then that's hardly compelling evidence for what you're saying; anyone can come by and add links to any article they wish, that doesn't mean that such content is ideal when consensus (i.e. this guideline) says otherwise. As for your featured list, part of the discussion recommended avoiding those red links by creating those articles as part of the FL criteria, so that doesn't help your argument. - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Avoided, but not always removed. For a more recently featured list to have red-linked names see Citra Award for Best Leading Actress. That looks to have been featured this September, after our discussion. Your interpretation is an interpretation see discussion above.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that FL discussion also called for dealing with the red links, so there's yet another link that actually disagrees with what you're saying. It would help if you gave an actual reason for replying instead of simply saying "your interpretation is an interpretation" without actually showing how. Red links that are personal names should be avoided, that's exactly what this guideline says. It's fine that you disagree with what the guideline says, but don't pretend that it's some kind of "interpretation" when I say that red linked personal names should be avoided in articles; that's not an interpretation. That some articles met the FL criteria (which is an unrelated matter) doesn't somehow support what you're saying, especially when the discussions included recommendations that the red linked personal names be dealt with. If you're here because of a specific article, discuss that on the specific article, but this talk page is for the guideline, and while I'm not suggesting that it absolutely forbids it, this guideline does not support adding personal names as red links by any means. - Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I only see one person on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Citra Award for Best Leading Actress/archive1 mention red-links and all that person said was "There's a boatload of redlinks on the page which is kinda glaringly crying out for creation of new article stubs at least." He or she is maybe implying articles be created, or names de-bracketeted, but did not explicitly say that must happen for it to be featured. Indeed the list became featured without all the red-links being removed or becoming articles. The policy says In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. (I know there was an argument that people don't count as terms, but otherwise it's talking about articles) WP:REDDEAL "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information." (I'm not finding that one now, possibly it's been removed) "Lists of 'notable people' in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference." Which indicates names are removed when their notability is questionable, but can remain otherwise. You asserted that meant the name stays as non-bracketed, but that was just your attempt to reconcile things, it's not explicitly stated. (I am going to contact the person who mentioned red-links in that FL discussion.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

And I'm continuing the previous discussion, which was not resolved even if you feel it was. But fine I'll expand it in general. I could create articles out of every red-link I had on List of draughts players, or agree they can never be put back once removed, but that still wouldn't resolve the problem with your interpretation. Because your interpretation wouldn't effect only that list or other lists I created. It could mean removing existing red-links, even if they've been in an article from the beginning and are verified as notable, and that's different than just not adding red-links which I agree is discouraged or forbidden now. And your interpretation would have a chilling affect on article creation because red-links are an aid to expansion. "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Also Wikipedia is collaborative. It's not on me, or any one individual, to turn every red-linked name in a list into an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence summed up what I've already said, so perhaps you should read what you're responding to in the future. Further, this "your interpretation" thing is, yet again, all you're going by, and yet you've consistently failed to explain how it's somehow an interpretation as opposed to what the guideline says. You're also confusing the concept of red links that are personal names with red links in general, and assuming that if you don't like what the guideline says that it's somehow just an interpretation; it is not. For the last time, red links that are personal names should be avoided. That is not an interpretation, it is exactly what the guideline says. You are correct that it's not up to you to do it by yourself, because again you're arguing against something that was never said nor implied. However, just because you are unwilling to fix something that you're complaining about does not mean that it can remain in the state you desire when the guideline says to avoid that state, especially when other editors are trying to ensure that the red linked personal names are avoided. so that's hardly justification for something just because you don't like what it means. - Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I think I've been quite clear and sited policy. Your taking one sentence or two and claiming that's the whole of the policy. Red-links of people can remain in lists and articles if they're verified as notable. I feel I've shown that. Prove that wrong if you can.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, red links to personal names can't and won't remain in lists. There is nothing for anyone to prove, and these red herrings about "interpretations" of extremely straightforward wording need to stop. You don't like the policy. We get it. Either get a consensus to change it, follow it, or edit other articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying I sincerely don't think removing all red-list names is policy. "Avoid" can mean "don't do it" rather than "always undo it." Other things would at least seem to go against always undoing red-links no matter how notable they are. If it were a policy yeah I wouldn't like it, but I don't see it's claiming it is a policy. Further actions at "Featured lists" would indicate not removing red-link names is allowed. The excuse that "they were too lazy" to do it, just implies that even featured content is not very good or does not have to obey policy. Can you justify that?--T. Anthony (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're looking at things concerning general red links and assuming they apply to any red link, yet the guideline specifically says to avoid personal names as red links. Red links can remain in lists when they meet certain criteria, but personal names should be avoided, which is one of those criteria, whether you like it to be or not. This guideline clearly and directly does not support inserting red linked personal names into articles, period. I'm not claiming "that's the whole of the policy", that's yet another red herring. What I am doing is citing the actual part of the guideline that specifically deals with personal names; cherry picking around that to get the answer you're looking for doesn't work, because when personal names are involved, the guideline must be read with the pertinent parts in mind, specifically that such items should be avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay fine the part that deals with names. The part saying "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 in the section Avoiding creation of certain types of red links. So on creating new red-linked names policy is clear. In Dealing with existing red links we have Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference. The first sentence talks of accruing names of unverifiable notability and that those should be removed and that "lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference." You interpret that as meaning the notable names can only stay as unbracketed, but it doesn't say that either way. (Although the non-links part likely means non-verifiable names must be removed even if not-bracketed) Although that section does state A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information. People may not count as terms, but they do count as Wikipedia articles last time I checked. In List of the first female holders of political offices in Europe Ema Derossi-Bjelajac was not an nn name added, she's a red-linked former Prime Minister of Croatia who was in the article from the start. It is unfortunate that, in five years, she's not been created but that doesn't mean she can't plausibly be created in the future. Hence her red-link name stays as do many others on that list. Your interpretation would mean removing all red-linked names on a list that could aid expansion in an area, women in non-English speaking parts of Europe, we may have systemic issues with. You will need to cite something in Wikipedia:REDDEAL to justify removing existing red-linked people in the way you wish. What you're citing is about red-link creation. You two are both quite stubborn, but so am I. Which, granted, is irrelevant. Stubbornness doesn't mean correctness in either case.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we at least get both sides to agree that the debate is only in regard to redlinking names of LIVING people, and is due to a BLP problem, and that nobody (really, NOBODY) cares about redlinking names of deceased persons? That the fact that the policy about avoiding personal names doesn't say "personal names of LIVING PERSONS" is probably an unintended omission? Can we at least fix that? SBHarris 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I could go with that reading. Although it still would mean Citra Award for Best Leading Actress, a featured list, is breaking policy or must be changed. Still it's at least a reasonable compromise in interpretations. (All language involves some level of interpretation)--T. Anthony (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to go with that reading, get consensus to change the wording. Maybe it is "an unintended omission". If so, it shouldn't be too hard to change. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I just changed it. I've had the basic argument up (under the clarification note) for months. Basically it amounts to the observation that the reason given for avoiding links to personal names involves reputation problems that dead people don't care about. Hence, QED, this really applies only to personal names of living people.

I will further note that the page doesn't say that redlinks to personal names are FORBIDDEN, it says they are to be avoided. And then it gives reasons that certainly do not apply to namelists of live, aging cricketers or other sportsmen/women. So I think the text also supports the idea that when the redlinks occur in lists of people who are clearly in no danger of having their reputations harmed in a guilt-by-association way (sportspeople and minor royalty, etc), there should be no policy problem, even as the policy reads now, in creating a namelist with some redlinked names. Right? SBHarris 02:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it, because it doesn't matter that the intended person's red link is living or not, that's the issue. The problem is that , for example, if I create an article about a living person that has the same name as a dead murderer, it creates a serious BLP issue when that redlinked murderer's name becomes a blue link and takes you to a living person since it makes it seem like that person is a murderer. That's why WP:REDNOT says what it does, and whether the murderer (in this example) is living or deceased doesn't change that one bit. Granted not every red link is going to be a serious BLP issue like that, but that's kind of the point; just because we know that a certain person did nothing that would create a BLP issue, we don't know that for every person with that same name. With that in mind I don't think it's a good idea to just outright remove that from consideration when it is a concern especially when, as you say, it doesn't outright forbid such red links, only discourages them and that concern should certain be noted as part of why it's discouraged. - Aoidh (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well what if it is clearly identified? For example George Miller (draughts player)? And if the concern of BLP is this great how is that not discouraging of creating articles on people? Can I create George Appo, a German "good article" on my List of Missing North Americans, or does his being a nineteenth century criminal mean there's too great a risk a living George Appo will be angry?--T. Anthony (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Simply create the article, rather than making a red link that will linger for years in the hope that someone will create it for you. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It's not about this one guy. Should I create everything that's still red in Wikipedia:WikiProject British crime/Wanted Articles too? Would you at least be open to creating Wikiprojects for existing red-link names you remove?(Also what of Wikipedia:Most wanted articles? Doesn't some of those at least imply a personal name is going to be a target of red-linking. Do you want to make sure no names are linked enough to be in that project either? Do you have support for that level of sweeping change?)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You have this impression that the red links are being removed to discourage creating articles; it is not. Red links encourage article creation, yes, but so do personal names in such lists that do not have wikilinks around them; the difference is negligible, and whatever encouragement is conferred is outweighed by WP:BLP, a policy. Especially because in your given example, List of draughts players, those red links have been there for well over seven years. Those red links are obviously not very encouraging, certainly not any more than simply giving the name and a reference and showing that they belong on the list, but that there is no article for the person. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference might be pretty real if the notable person has a name that's more common than the ones I chose. Say Ruth Martin (Estonian politician) on the aforementioned List of the first female holders of political offices in Europe. Switch it to a delinked "Ruth Martin" and the person might have to then think what to add, etc. (And the red-link Ruth Martin (Estonian politician) wouldn't even cause the issues your discussing, neither would Abel Verse (draughts player). Possibly red-linked names should be required to have paranthetical explanations like that) It's definitely making the process harder so I don't see how discouraging creating people isn't the point of applying the rules of creating red-links to how we deal with existing ones. As the policy your citing, as I tried to show, about creating red-links not dealing with existing ones.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but red links of personal names don't suddenly become a non-issue just because you believe they "already existed" before some given time period. When you readded them, you created the red links, and the reason why they should be avoided don't suddenly become null and void just because you added them. - Aoidh (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay I shouldn't have re-added them to the one list. But I'm not sorry to say of course it is different if they already exist. That's why the red-deal part has a different section than the creation part, with somewhat different examples or wording, and maybe why you still can't support your view from that section. What exists matters in many things here. It's part of why some articles are titled by British spelling and some American. Why some have an "Estonian politician" next to the title and others are just the person's name. Red-deal even has this on what an existing red-link can indicate "Using the template {{ill}}; for example, {{ill|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} shows Sigmund Jakobsen". Should we remove that from its examples as he's a living person?--T. Anthony (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The WP:ENGVAR issue is miles away from why personal names should be avoided as red links, that isn't even comparable on any level, and in no circumstance is the reason for WP:REDNOT suddenly non-existent simply because you cited a general example for red links; the issue still remains that such links should be avoided. That's not to say that editors should go to any and every article they can find to remove them, only that the "they already existed" rationale is not a substitute for an actual reason. The Jakobsen example you gave was only added last month without discussion, so it looks like that example was simply overlooked, since all of the discussions on the matter say otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's clear that adding them is to be avoided and I was wrong to put them back. This still doesn't deal with Wikipedia:REDDEAL dealing with existing one. You're saying it does because because I guess you're saying a sentence in the creation part also applies to REDDEAL. But why is that so? Why does avoided mean removing? What policy says that all must be so? There is a certain logic in trying to reconcile everything in it, but that doesn't mean they aren't different sections talking about slightly different things. Your wanting them to be a "oneness", or mine not, is not that clear what it is. I'm open to some kind of compromise, but you kind-of seem to be saying that's not possible because your view is not arguable but some kind of fact. And that's not something I see myself agreeing with unless I feel I have no choice.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:REDDEAL deals with why red links generally shouldn't be removed specifically because people have previously gone removing red links just because they were red links. It does not say anything about the specific situation of personal names, which should be avoided. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but again I'm not suggesting that someone should go around and remove any and every red link that happens to be a personal name. What I am saying is that if they were removed and a discussion starts on a talk page about it, citing the fact that they "already existed" per WP:REDDEAL is not a reason to keep on that merit alone, and that it needs to be discussed on its own merits as opposed to some time passing before someone noticed that it was there. Whether the red link is there five minutes or five years, the reasoning behind personal names being avoided is still there, that's what I'm saying. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to say you remove names when they're not-notable and keep them when they are. It is not specific on what it means by "keeping them." Whether that means you can or can't keep them as a red-link if they were one. It also indicates to keep if an article can be plausibly created. So I'd think citing that is a reason to keep. And if there's a parentheses to the red-link, like with Ruth Martin (Estonian politician) or Abel Verse (draughts player), much of your BLP objection falls apart.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "my" BLP objection, it's Wikipedia's BLP policy, as noted in this guideline. Yes, a parenthetical disambiguation helps, but does not cause a BLP concern to "fall apart". Even with an overly precise parenthetical disambiguation, there can still be multiple people that could have such an article created. Even if you're going as precise as a person named John Smith who won the Medal of Honor in the late 1800s, there are three such articles here, here, and here. I'm not saying that a parenthetical disambiguation doesn't help, but I am saying that adding a parenthetical disambiguation doesn't remove the BLP concerns entirely, given that it is entirely probable that someone can have the same name and same logical parenthetical disambiguation (especially where politicians are concerned). - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant your specific level of concern. And you're talking about one of the most common names in the world. Plus even then it managed to differentiate by birth year. Do you really think there's another Estonian politician named Ruth Martins? Or another Abel Verse whose noted for competitive draughts?--T. Anthony (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

John Smith is probably the most common name, that's why I went there first, but it's hardly difficult to find numerous other examples. Do you really think that there are two people named Mike McCoy who played for the Green Bay Packers in the 1970s? There are, here and here. So when you ask if there is another person with the same name where the same parenthetical disambiguation would apply, I don't know, and neither do you, that's exactly the point. It doesn't matter how specific you go, there's no guarantee that there are no other people that could also fit that same disambiguation, that's why adding a parenthetical disambiguation helps, but does not alleviate the BLP concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad point. Still is this level of cautiousness actually spelled out as necessary? If so how do you create articles on people at all, red-link issue or not? If I create Abel Verse (draughts player), and it's about the French national champion who died in 1994, wouldn't I be running the risk of alienating or angering this hypothetical other Abel Verse who plays draughts? Even if I'm not making it from any list? Maybe he thinks he should have the article. Maybe he's put out to be in that guy's shadow. Maybe he's also elderly and worries his distant relatives will think he died in 1994? Or if I don't even precisely want to do a person. Like I create an article on Pedro R. Fernández, a settlement in Argentina, and for some bizarre reason a guy with that name is miffed. (Okay that one is unlikely, but maybe no more unlikely then two Abel Verse's known for draughts)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to create an article when someone has the same name (most names aren't unique), it's another thing completely to insert a red linked personal name into an article even if it's a completely harmless context. Let's say I edit Macon, Georgia with an entry that says that Person XYZ won a specific notable award in 2013. This has the potential of becoming a problem because if someone else comes along later and creates an article at Person XYZ about a child molester with that same name, the article Macon, Georgia can then be seen as accusing the person who won that award as being a child molester, and that's a serious BLP problem. That's why WP:REDNOT says that red links that are personal names should be avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

But is allowing one to stay that's already in the same as inserting one? You seem to be indicating it makes no difference, but the policy does have different sections on the two issues. List of draughts players had red-links from the point I started it. In fact I think I might have even created it for expansion purposes. Although not a list Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias looks to have red-linked personal names. Most recent featured articles don't, I'll grant, but this is from this September. I know you'll feel that's not "relevant" but the interpretation of removing existing red-linked names is not agreed to by all and seems to not even be applied in much feature content. So if your reading of the policy is correct, and my complaint was about removing all red-links not whether I could add more, than the policy is having only mixed success. Also as a person who's created around 2,500 articles I think it (meaning your understanding of the policy, not the policy itself) is kind of discouraging. When I'd create an article, and found it linked to nothing, I'd think there was no desire for it and that it might just languish forgotten. Or that I'd have to do all work on it. If you remove all red-linked names that you find, which you seem to be leaning against now (in which case maybe you'd agree removing all red-links, even those that had sources, from the list I created was excessive), than when a person creates a person article it's going to be "an orphan" at least at first. People who may even be interested in it, say he or she was an actor they had found little about but was in a film they're interested in, might find it more difficult to see if it was created. Particularly if the creator was not interested in his/her role in that particular film. But if it's red it turns to blue and they know. If your reading of the WP:REDDEAL section is correct, which I clearly think it isn't, than I'll admit I think the policy should be changed. But I don't see that as necessary because I still don't think you're necessarily correct. Your reading is more plausible than I thought, but still doesn't seem inherent or inevitable. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looks to be the one that added the part about avoiding personal names. I don't know if they meant it applies to existing personal names or not as I think I'm unfamiliar with him/her.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If the redlinked name is in a benign context, like list of draughts players or list of bowtie wearers there is no risk of some BLP violation occurring when, down-the-line somebody creates an article about a living person with the same name who didn't play draughts or wear a bowtie. Nobody cares about minor non-libelous stuff-- it happens in dab pages of people with the same name all the time. The fact that somebody like Charles Bassett might refer to an astronaut or a cowboy for awhile before somebody does the dab page, is not a big deal, because nobody cares if the one is mistaken for the other. There is no BLP consideration to outweigh in that case. So, the page should simply say that one must be careful when redlinking names, that the names redlinked are in contexts where no libel problems would be created if identities were to be confused with somebody else (ie, don't redlink names of people identified as doing bad or antisocial things).

Finally, the observation that some redlink has persisted for seven years, is beside the point and amounts to going to yet another argument that redlinks that last a long time should be deleted. Wikipedia is never done (WP:NOTDONE), and if a redlink persists for 20 years or 100 years, that should be nothing to you (unless you're really saying you don't like the color in the meantime, but that is addressed above). Nobody demands (and you're not going to demand) that WP get done in your preferred time-frame. You can just view the red for seven years. If you don't like it, vote for green. SBHarris 02:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. I'll just vote for observing the guideline as it is written. If you manage to get a consensus to get it changed, then I'll observe that instead. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus that your understanding of Wikipedia:REDDEAL is policy while my understanding of "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information" or of the sections in "The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. If such an article meets the English-language Wikipedia criteria, then follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Translation; if not, use a link to the article in the foreign-language version of Wikipedia instead of a red link. Such links can be made by:" is not.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're only looking at from one direction. That benign context could then link to a newly created article about a non-benign person. BLP articles have a much higher standard than non-BLP articles; it doesn't matter if you think nobody cares, that's not how the BLP policy works. Saying that "Wikipedia is never done" is sorely missing the point, and the time frame is irrelevant, I noted the length of time that those red links were there as a rebuttal to the suggestion that the red links in that article were somehow critical and were creating articles, not that they should be removed after a certain time period. You're arguing against something nobody suggested. - Aoidh (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently statistically uninformed if you think that your personal noting that a few red links in one article have been there seven years, is any kind of "rebuttal" to the general idea that red links were "critical and were creating articles". First of all, that's a straw man-- nobody has argued that red links are "critical". The idea that redlinks in general help wikipedia grow has been tested statistically (see notes in the article that this is a talk page of) and found to be supported. It's not up for debate unless you have something more. Your own countervailing opinion is not only original research, but if you're basing it on what you say you're basing it on, is incredibly poor personal research. You should be ashamed to even put that in print. Is this really all you've got? You saw a few red links one time that lasted years, so you don't think much of them? And you are opposed to their use even in cases where BLP is not an issue, as for example lists of draughts players? What? Is that the level of argumentation we've sunk to? SBHarris 04:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you're arguing against things that weren't suggested. What I said is that the benefit of red links does not outweigh the BLP issue when it comes to personal names. As you say, that's not up for debate, this guideline already covers that, as does WP:BLP. As for your "BLP is not an issue" error, don't take my word for it, please read through this talk page and the archive, as there are quite a few discussions that point out the flaw in that reasoning. Just because your intended individual has no BLP concerns does not mean that the actual article created wouldn't. Even if you could verify beyond any doubt that every single person with that same name would create no possible BLP issues if an article about that person were to be created, that one extraordinary example is not cause to remove the wording currently given. - Aoidh (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Red link dispute resolution

If a dispute arises as to the reasonableness of a red link's article being created in the future, what resolution process would you recommend? What if there is a list article with many red links? Jojalozzo 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You might try WP:RFC. The fact that there are many redlinks in a given page is not, in itself, a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good approach if we'd can get enough informed outside opinion. I understand red links are fine and they serve an important purpose but some list articles have a link for every entry suggesting that little consideration was given to the reasonableness of an article being created for them. Jojalozzo 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)