Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There were two proposals for consideration in this discussion related to the inclusion of redlinks in navboxes. The key additions to the guideline in the first proposal were that:
  1. Redlinks are acceptable in navboxes if there are also multiple blue links.
  2. Excessive red links in navboxes are discouraged.
  3. Excessive red links should not be added by an editor unless they intend to build those articles.

Editors who favored these proposals frequently noted that redlinks have long been a device Wikipedia has used to promote article creation. They argued that redlinks are not problematic because they can potentially become articles. They also argued that redlinks can help define scope for a navbox, and that removing redlinks unnecessarily can sometimes seem like we are hiding potentially useful articles that haven't been written yet.

Editors who were against these proposals argued that navboxes are intended to guide readers around related article content, and that as emtpy articles, redlinks are by definition not consistent with those expectations. They also contended that this proposal would violate a basic premise in the current guideline, that "editors are encouraged to write the article first" before it is added. As a result, they argued that this policy would lead to editors creating navboxes full of redlinks with little actual content. A final argument was that exceptions for redlinks already exist in the current guideline, and that the proposed guidelines are not necessary.

A proposal about non-linked text (i.e. "black links") was also proposed as a compromise, but did not receive sufficient support here.

Consensus in the first proposal was in favor of including the proposed changes to the guideline. This decision was based on several key problems in the argumentation of the opposition as voiced by participants here. First, concerns about too many redlinks appearing in navboxes is addressed by points #2 & #3 above, and can be enforced accordingly. Second, the assertion that navboxes are best restricted to navigational purposes was not supported by evidence or compelling argumentation. Editors provided evidence that navboxes with redlinks have been used to support article creation and can potentially attract readers to become editors as redlinks do in other contexts. Finally, many oppose arguments were simply not compelling, such as calling redlinks "useless" and "clutter" or characterizing the proposal as an "anything goes approach" which it clearly is not.

One other note was that some editors objected to the language around exceptions for redlinks in navboxes because of its exclusivity or because they felt it was being abused by some editors.  SMcCandlish's suggested changes that addressed some of these exclusivity concerns, but it did not garner a sufficient level of support. I would highly recommend this phrasing be revisited at a later discussion in several months' time as a possible replacement for point #1 above.

The second proposal suggests the removal of the word "navboxes" from a statement describing where redlinks are generally not included. It would be very confusing to maintain this phrasing given the above consensus. Consequently, the term will be summarily removed from the statement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There's something very wrong about the notion that nav boxes shouldn't have red links. If content is missing on a subject, red links in a nav box are one of the most productive ways to get an editor to blue link them. Especially if an editor declares that they are ploughing through them. Obviously 90% + red links and very few blue links isn't really a good idea, but a healthy number of red links should be perfectly acceptable. Particularly if an editor is actively working on filling them to remove them in the process citing WP:RED is disruptive. We have a problem here in that Rob Sinden is treating this as a legal enforcement and it's a poorly thought out guideline and counterproductive to development on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is fine. Navboxes are nothing more than a navigational aid to help users navigate between existing articles here on the English Wikipedia. Redlinks hinder navigation. Redlinks are better off filled in through a list article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you hinder development. How does a red link affect navigation? So long as there's a fair few blue links readers can ignore what is missing and click them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at {{Anthony Trollope}}. Not a useful navigational tool. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Doc. The guidelines are flawed and should be more used more flexibly. There are those who cannot act with even the smallest deviation from the guidelines, regardless of how unhelpful those guidelines are, but they are best ignored for the long-term good of the encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we're going to need an RFC. It seems there is massive polarity in the community on this issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec 3 times) Support red links in navboxes: as Dr. Blofeld says, missing important topics related to a subject would make fine points of departure to develop articles. This came true for Bach cantatas, where estimated hundred articles were created from red links which gave the proper article name, - while if you wait for random filling that consistency is lost. - A person disliking a red link could create a stub almost as fast as deleting the red link. - The navbox is seen by people reading an article, - a list article rather not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
ps: How do people feel about red ill links, for topics notable in a different Wikipedia, example Orgelbau Mebold? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Navboxes are not for interwiki linking. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". (Bolding mine). --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ill}} (now replaced with {{illm}}) is an enormously useful tool, encouraging creation and facilitating the spread of information to those who read the languages linked to (or who make use of translation services). At worse, it's a stop gap; at best, it encourages the creation of articles (I've translated a number of articles from French and Japanese that were linked via {{ill/m}}). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Er, aren't redlinks already allowed? WP:REDNOT states Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like. Number 57 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Let's keep it simple: remove the navbox bit, that has been the subject of this dispute. Use redlinks in navboxes subject to the general guideline for WP:RED, i.e. 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. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic ...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And just to be clear on this, I am completely opposed to what you are suggesting – I think it's a very bad idea to apply the policy you are suggesting to Navboxes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision proposal

I propose that the guideline be changed to something along the lines of: "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in navigation boxes, it is acceptable to have a number of red links. Red links can indicate that important articles are missing and be a productive way of inviting readers to build content and fill them. However, an excessive number of red links which far exceed the number of blue links is ill-advised, and editors should refrain from adding excessive red links to templates unless they are actively working through them and intend to fill them all. 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (as the proposer)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I really think this needs a proper RfC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    this is functioning as an RFC, and what better place to do it then on the talk page of the problematic guideline page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, would not even need the ratio of blue to red, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but really think an RfC is needed. Navboxes are nothing more than a navigational aid to help users navigate between existing articles here on the English Wikipedia. A sea of redlinks hinders navigation. Redlinks are better off filled in through a list article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Did you not read the proposed revision? A sea of red links, far greater than the number of blue links is ill-advised unless the editor adding them is actively working through them blue linking them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    And of course this is nonsense because a navbox could have just a handful of entries which wouldn't necessitate a "list article". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Red links will not hinder navigation (how stupid do you think our readers really are that they cannot recognise a common way of showing a non-link?) and dumping links into a list article seems to me that you somehow consider list articles to somehow be second class cizitens here, which is against every consensus on the point I've seen. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The guideline reads: "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like." Is this not sufficient? Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Obviously not because Sinden continues to cause disruption for editors working with red links. He's convinced that any red link is an evil and must be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    As far as I can make out, there was no specific trigger for this, other than my trying to maintain status quo on the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    The guideline is sufficiently clear on the point that any red link is not evil. The vast majority of articles listed in navboxes are part of a set, and are covered by this provision. I don't see what needs to be changed here. Alakzi (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – redlinks are absolutely useless in Navboxes (outside of the exception Alakzi mentions), and allowing for this has ultimately led to the creation of lots of Navboxes that are almost entirely redlinks!! Keeping the guideline to excluding redlinks from Navbox should be maintained – heck, the enforcement of such should actually ramp up!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And I've said nav boxes like that are ill advised. There has to be a good balance. A few red links in a template. notable missing articles can often be a productive thing. Making wikipedia the most comprehensive source should be the ultimate goal, and if we are hampering editors from working together to achieve that within reason or reverting editors who want to build them then it's counterproductive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
They absolutely are ill-advised. But some like that already exist on en Wiki right now. If the people in this thread have their way, Navboxes like that will not only be "allowed" – they'll be encouraged! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, you are wholly mistaken. I used a red-linked navbox to create 158 good articles and 3 featured articles in one year. How much did you do last year, other than make weak claims around red links? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You didn't need a navbox to do that, though. A list would have been fine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"You didn't need a navbox list to do that, though. A list navbox would have been fine." Sorry, but that's not even an argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your point at all, I used a navbox, full of red links, to create 158 good articles and 3 featured articles in just over a year. The red links in the navbox inspired me to create. That is the point. If you don't understand that, fine, but stop trying to suggest alternatives that didn't actually happen. Less is more, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Question — Why not simply leave non-existent articles as unlinked titles? Just enter the text and leave off the brackets, the text will be black and it is clear to readers that there is no link. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How does that aid navigation? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
1) Remember WP:RF. What would a casual reader make of being directed to a page creation form when they are looking for information? I would suggest that having no link is clearer and less disruptive to the reader.
2) The suggestion is also a way to diffuse an ongoing and increasingly rancorous argument! :-)
The question remains, it's not a binary choice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, for a limited amount. The amount of red links should, imnho, be kept low and mainly highlight the most important pages that are missing from the encyclopedia. I do prefer leaving 'Red links' black, per above comment, just unlinked and not red-linked. This shows that an important article is missing but at the same time doesn't draw the eye to the red, which is the colour that the brain "sees" first, attention-wise. Randy Kryn 13:52, 17 2015 (UTC)
    Navboxes are not a substitute for lists; they must contain links. The way we indicate that a notable topic (i.e. one that would deserve its own article and hence be part of a navbox) is missing is by means of a red link. Alakzi (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    You are probably right, I just wish the color wasn't so harsh and disrupting to templates. Would people mind if a less-harsh colour were introduced on some templates through coding? For example, it's a fact that police will give a red car more tickets, or at least notice its actions, for that reason - that the brain registers 'Red' before any other colour. Randy Kryn 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest support. The redlinks are part of the sum of all human knowledge. They let the reader/editor know that something is missing. They are as important as the bluelinks. Check out the templates in Category:African economy templates and you'll find lots of redlinks. Check out {{Economy of Cameroon}} in particular... lots and lots of redlinks. Removing these redlinks, IMO, is akin to saying, "We are exerting control over knowledge. If the article has been written, we'll account for it here. If it hasn't been written, we don't want you to know about it." List articles with redlinks are important, too, but it's comparing apples and oranges to say that one can have lots of redlinks while the other cannot. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I love this idea. It sounds like a great way to encourage people to create content, including the aim to build this encyclopaedia. I don't think the ratio should be of concern. JAGUAR  14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how it works in theory, not in practice. Also, the point is Navboxes are not the places to use redlinks to encourage content creation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this should turn into a real RfC (with a template and all), so that input is gathered from a wide and public range of users rather than just people who happen to have this page on their watchlist or people who happened to see a semi-related short-lived ANI. It's not too late to turn it into a public RfC, as it was just started today I think. I think a public RfC will increase the likelihood of whatever consensus "sticking" without being disputed again in the near future; also it would lessen the temptation to canvass, or to inappropriately canvass. Short of a real RfC, I predict the status quo is going to stick longterm, whatever the outcome here. (Anyway, don't ask me to change this to an RfC, as I didn't start the poll and I'm taking this page off my watch list.) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with minor wording change. "At least two or three" is pointless: three is implicitly at least two. The risk is that some future wikipinhead will then argue that a template with four bluelinks should be deleted because it is neither two nor three. You know we have people like that.
I would favour "at least one bluelink", for the reason of a simple use case. Consider a naval ship class. One class article, six ships, one notable battle. It's very likely we will first encounter this with no more than the class article (i.e. one bluelink). Yet there is already value in such a navbox, for listing the ship names and indicating their relevance to the battle. This has value to the reader, it is useful, we should allow it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely zero value to a navbox with one blue link. What are you navigating between? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Navboxes (and lists of redlinks generally) have more value than just navigation to completed articles. They define lists. They illustrate the breadth of a topic. They also indicate targets for article creators (and consistent naming across sets is awkward to manage, so they have value for that too).
Nothing about a policy that redlinks are acceptable makes them compulsory. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Lists are one thing, Navboxes are another. I agree that redlinks are fine (maybe even "good") in the context of lists. But they definitely aren't "good" in Navboxes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's a good example (cited in the 2010 Railways discussion linked above). A complex list and navbox, with naming that changed over two periods of history and so many of these links are piped. It was extremely useful to get these two lists sorted out at the start, from some consistent sources, and then to work on the articles as we could. When created, this template (which is one of many similar) was bright red. It's now mostly blue. BilCat's observation that in the year after the aircraft project set up similar templates (with lots of red) it majorly increased article creation rates for linked articles is also relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Dr. Blofeld. Caden cool 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The edit-warred text started the sentence with "Red links generally are not included" (emph added). Combined with the standard guideline disclaimer at the top of the page, this really seems like more of a WP:SOFIXIT issue if the nav template is being populated with articles that will soon be created. See also WP:CREEP and WP:LAME; we do not need instructions for everything. The specific text proposed seems over-detailed for a guideline. VQuakr (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I stated in the #Nav boxes NO red links discussion above that just like the WP:See also section, WP:NAVBOXES are meant to direct readers to existing articles, not indicate that an article should be created. The text on this is stating that a topic that does not have a Wikipedia article should not be listed in the WP:NAVBOX; the guideline already addresses the one exception to red links being in the navboxes -- the succession box aspect. Otherwise, they should not be there. I don't want people using the navbox to stuff a bunch of redlinks. I also suggest that a WP:RfC is started on this matter, and that this is possibly advertised at the WP:Village pump. Given the sudden influx of editors here, and the current full-protection, it's clear that this matter has already been publicized. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose revising the existing guideline, as proposed. Red links are already permitted in navboxes, but they may not predominate. The proposed change potentially opens the floodgates to the rapid creation of navboxes with many red links and few, if any blue links to existing stand-alone articles. The purpose of navboxes is not to encourage the creation of new article on subjects that any given navbox creator thinks are needed. Article creation must absolutely remain anchored in Wikipedia's concept of "notability"; what is being proposed here will encourage the creation of more articles on non-notable subjects, lead to more disputes over article notability, and further burden our AfD processes. While allowing that some red links are permitted in navboxes, where the subjects of such red links are arguably notable and for which articles are likely to be created in the future, the basic rule of thumb should remain "create content first, then create navboxes to navigate among then-existing articles." I'm not sure what specific dispute, problem or special case is driving experienced editors like Dr. Blofeld, Schrocat and Gerda Arendt (all of whom should know better) to support this sweeping and ill-conceived proposal, but I urge you to find a more specific solution to your problem rather than foisting a radical and sweeping change on our well-established understanding of when navboxes, including red links, are appropriate. This is a very bad idea; the idea that a navbox might include no blue links at all is just goofy. Wikipedia does not suffer from a shortage of navboxes, and there are far better ways to encourage the creation of new content regarding notable subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read the proposal Dirtlawyer1? Since where do I advocate "the idea that a navbox might include no blue links at all". I said provided that the nav box has a minimum of two or three blue links and that the number of red links are not excessive in proportion to the blue links. A balance where there are a number of blue links and a few red ones to try to improve comprehension of a topic, without excess. Sinden uses these guidelines as a formal policy, and in doing so hampers editors from producing content. You support that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but other people followed up on you suggesting that there needn't be any guideline requiring blue links, or at least suggesting that an "acceptable ratio" of each in unneeded. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think common sense is needed, case by case. Ultimately I am proposing this because I see preventing editors from adding red links to nav templates as lessening our potential growth as a resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. B: "Did you even bother to read the proposal?" Affirmative, Dr. B, I did. I'm a regular participant in TfD discussions, and I know from experience that the problem is not what you describe. I also recognize several of the participants in this discussion as editors who believe that an anything-goes approach to navboxes would be appropriate, including some of the "support" comments above, as well as one editor who is overly enthusiastic in his interpretation and enforcement of the existing guideline. There must remain a common-sense rule of thumb pursuant to which there are (a) a minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles (not redirects or section links to the same article), and (b) a majority of the links in any given navbox also must be blue links as described. That serves the purpose of WP:NAVBOX while exercising common sense with a dash of WP:IAR. That's been the effective interpretation for the five years I have participated in TfDs.
Dr. B: "I think common sense is needed, case by case." I could not agree with you more. Common sense is required, but emasculating the existing standard to permit red links to predominate any given navbox is a very bad idea. At its core, this is a content dispute that threatens to gut our existing guideline. If you have a particular navbox with at least three blue links and at least half of the total links are blue, and you feel that Robsinden or any other editor is targeting said navbox with a measure of over-enthusiasm, ping me. I think you will find me ready, willing and determined to apply the common-sense standard you advocate above. And that can be done within the existing language of the guideline. That also assumes that the navbox's red link topics are arguably notable per WP:N or other specific notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Ultimately I am proposing this because I see preventing editors from adding red links to nav templates as lessening our potential growth as a resource. That sounds like a behavioral problem that really does not have its root cause in this guideline. Creeping up the instructions won't solve this; the editors removing the redlinks without thinking need to be coached. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Red Herring: How about black links? These are not links at all, but may be useful when the titles in a navbox are part of a series, some have articles and some are very unlikely to get articles. Maybe the guideline should mention the possibility. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Mayors of Smallville
1776–1880
George Washington • Fred Smith • Johann K. McMahon • Joe Who • Abraham Lincoln • What's-his-name • John Doe

Arbitrary break 1

  • Support: Blofeld has a clear idea, and it is clear that redlinks can outnumber bluelinks, which occasionally will happen. That said, I wonder if it it easier and simply remove the navbox exception to the general policy. While I do agree that a navbox should not be "aspirational" with 90%+ redlinks, a rule like "a navbox must be foo percent bluelinks" isn't really very helpful, encourages the creation of poor-quality stubs just to make links blue, and is just more grounds for spatting. Every template is different; for example, {{The_Boat_Race}} is complete. However, it was not always thus, as User:The Rambling Man can no doubt verify. In contrast, {{KentuckyDerby}} is incomplete and has many red links, but, like the Boat Race, is a topic where each year's event should eventually have an article created; clearly there is some minor progress being made, as it is under half redlinks. But the worst-case scneario is what has happened with {{Belmont Stakes}}, where the Rob Sinden rule appears to be applied; only the very few race articles with articles are even in the template, all bluelinked, yet the race goes back to... 1866- it's 10 years older than the Kentucky Derby! Has the dearth of redlinks in the navbox actually discouraged editors from creating articles? Out of sight, out of mind? Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Side comment: Forcing redlinks into lists only is actually counterproductive and goes against other guidelines, as it leads to redlinks to obscure topics languishing unnoticed; I know of many lists where redlinks are ruthlessly excluded until the article is created, particularly bogus links of "notable residents" to various city and state articles. Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I started with one blue link and 160 red links. I ended with 161 blue links. Wikipedia has 158 good articles and 3 featured articles as a result. I'm not suggesting this will always be the case, but the motivation was there, to clear off the red links. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Solid Support -- per Dr. Blofeld and others. I see no reason why red links here cannot be used. CassiantoTalk 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - to bring it in line with common editing of articles - there is no reason to treat templates differently. And the {{Belmont Stakes}} template is an excellent reason why we SHOULD link redlinks in templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Navboxes already commonly contain redlinks, and I can't see any good argument for stopping this practice. Yes, there are going to be edge-cases, but these can be dealt with individually- the guidelines should not be standing in the way of redlinks in navboxes. Blofeld's wording seems sesnsible. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I alerted WP:FLC, per your suggestion. As for red links in navboxes, I noted above that I see navboxes similar to how I see the WP:See also section. Both are meant to direct readers and editors to existing articles, not urge them to create articles. An editor throwing red links into a navbox because they want articles at those links, likely even when those topics are not WP:Notable, is not something I will support. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: SMcCandlish alerted Help talk:Link. And, SMcCandlish, regarding this edit summary, remember that, like I noted at Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas, I am female. Feel free to use feminine pronouns in reference to me. Also, The Rambling Man replied to my "20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)" post on my talk page, and I responded. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
OK; I don't always remember people's genders correctly on here, thus the "he/she'. I'm drawing a blank on the Rambling Man context. Was that related a previous conversation we had?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I noted The Rambling Man aspect because instead of replying to my "20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)" post (seen above) here on this talk page, he replied on my talk page. Since I dislike disjointed discussion, I wanted to make it clear on this talk page that The Rambling Man responded to my "no red links in the navbox" reply to him. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: I also alerted this, this, this, this and this WikiProject to this discussion; I chose them because those are the WikiProjects I visit the most and they significantly deal with navboxes. People are free to alert any other WikiProject, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Like this one; I used to frequent that WikiProject. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Red, Support Black: If the goal is to foster article creation, then whether a non-existent article appears as black text or a red link should be immaterial; those interested in article creation will get the message. If that's not the goal I'd like a more explicit statement of what problem this proposed revision is attempting to solve. Agreed with others that this should be handled as, at minimum, an RFC. DonIago (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Nope, if an article is notable enough to be created then it should be linked. It's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    You saying it doesn't make it so, but thanks for offering your opinion. DonIago (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Um, yes, saying it is so is absolutely fundamental to redlink and Wikipedia. It's very simple! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Nope, if an article is notable enough to be created then it should created and then linked. You're right, this is simple! DonIago (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    That's an argument against all redlinks. You sure you want to go there? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hilarious. Doniago, you clearly have no idea what redlinks are all about. Fundamental misunderstanding klaxon!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    It wasn't a particularly serious argument, anymore then I think TRM's argument was particularly serious. As for the klaxon, I can only hope it was a red alert klaxon. I suppose it would be pointless to note that a) my sole opinion probably isn't worth this level of discussion, and b) if it is, then accusing me of having a "fundamental misunderstanding" rather than actually explaining what the misunderstanding is and trying to convince me to change my view isn't very persuasive; in fact, it seems to be having the opposite effect. DonIago (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support this amendment is needed before countless navboxes are wrecked by certain forces. There is nothing inherently wrong with red links in templates in the same way it can be beneficial to have red links in articles. Strongly encourages article creation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree strongly with the rationale. I've been reverted on this issue in the past and also agree that having the red links in the template might motivate others to create the missing articles. --Gonnym (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice: I have renamed the thread neutrally (preserving the original promotional title as an anchor) and changed the pointers I found to it to use the neutral wording. It's seriously process-transgressive to use hyperbolic "act now!" headings on proposals, and biases the proceedings, and it tricks people who want to neutrally notify other pages of the proposal into accidentally WP:CANVASSing, because their notice will contain the "advocacy" wording. The closer should strongly consider that !votes before this post were made when the proposal and most or all "advertising" of it had strongly non-neutral wording. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose, with two and only two exceptions that definitely should be made: Rationale for oppose: This idea totally perverts the express purpose of nav templates, which are to help readers navigate to the best already existing content we have that is central to a topic area. Furthermore, the wishy-washy wording in this is absolutely toothless, and will do nothing at all to curtail the creation of useless, "look how terrible WP is" red-farms, like this one. It's arguably acceptable to bludgeon readers with "click here! create a new article!" red-linking in some contexts, like in the middle of article prose (some say), or (more likely) in list articles, where a redlink can indicate missing information in a list that is supposed to be complete. But many even disagree with that rationale and scope; the issue has been discussed many times, and consensus has increasingly disfavored redlinking, with the result that MOS and content guidelines have limited it more and more over time. This proposal runs quite radically against that consensus, but not just going the other direction, but doing so in a context where redlinks are especially undesirable.

    Exception 1: Permit it when a) the list is of a finite set of things all of which are included in the template, and b) every possible member of the list is unquestionably notable (i.e. we will, undoubtedly, eventually have a blue link at all of them). So, "mayors of New York City", "Chevrolet sports cars", "member states of the United Nations". Not "novels by [anyone]", "Olympic skiers", or (the example I linked to) "cattle breeds of Italy". The trains example template higher up the page would qualify. The Mayors of Smallville one would not, because it's not complete, just listing a few alleged notables.

    Exception 2: Permit it when a) the list is a progressive sequence (usually numbers, e.g. years), and b) we will undoubtedly eventually have a blue link at all of them in the template because they are categorically, unquestionably notable (e.g. years, decades, centuries), but c) the list may or may not be complete (e.g. because it is divided into multiple templates for more than one series of articles, or our coverage will not exceed a certain range.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

    So, to summarise that massive text outburst, you support red links most of the time unless they point to things that probably won't ever have articles. Just like WP:REDLINK. Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. Instead of going out of your way to make a grouchy "tl;dr" point, just do the "r" part. It costs far less of both our time, and the closer's.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    No-one's going to "read very carefully", do us all a favour and just summarise your position compared to my summary, or else you'll suffer the usual ignominy of having your lengthy outburst completely overlooked time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Specific recommendations for what the guideline should say is not an "outburst", it's specific recommendations for what the the guideline should say. Just because you don't read very carefully (which doesn't bode well for people taking your input serious) doesn't mean no one does. Anyone closing RfCs usually does. I'd suggest some WP:TEA, but I think WP:DECAF is more in order. Someone should write that one.  :-/ I wonder how many more insults it will take before you've exceeded the length of my on-topic post?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure anyone will bother to count. You kind of made your point, but in the wash up, don't expect it to be considered, less is, after all, more. Fin. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as the text does make it clear that we are encouraging only red links to articles with real chances of inclusion. We cannot ignore the inescapable truth that some articles will never be able to exist under our current standards due to the lack of notability and we should not encourage anyone to create them, only to have them eventually deleted or redirected. Victão Lopes Fala! 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I come down quite cleanly on the side of red links should be banned or added only with certain and standard exceptions. Navboxes are clearly to navigate within Wikipedia (per WP:NAVBOX), and a red link is not yet in Wikipedia. SMcCandlish's suggestions go in the right direction, but I wonder whether you get into, er, "questionable" territory about what is "unquestionably going to be notable" (if it were unquestionably notable, is there not a chance that the article should exist already? ;). To quote myself from a discussion at WT:NAV:

    removal of red links from a navbox necessarily follows from the fact that navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia, not to red link pages (which aren't a part of Wikipedia yet). [...] I believe the text Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles still sufficiently says what should be said--that red links should be avoided... not removed or banned from all navboxes. (Take care that WP:IAR isn't the only rationale you provided for keeping red links in a navbox.)

    As a comment in favor of very few or zero red links, it's easier to maintain a navbox with links which are unequivocally blue linked (without redirects) for a large number of topic areas, including works, creators of works, and fiction, as broad classes of topics if no others. I imagine biology might have a similar need for management.

    A point I would also like to make is that while navboxes are lists (of links), they are not lists. Navboxes have zero need to be "complete" and I see this as a serious mischaracterization of what navboxes are actually used for. (Red links in lists, OTOH, it depends on page-specific desire.)

    People with the use case of creation of new articles should be encouraged to write a list article; a navbox is unnecessary and frankly undesirable for coordination of such work, because it provides zero benefit above and beyond even the most elementary of lists (which would likely have other helpful organization-oriented information such as dates, groupings, comments and notes that might be used to start articles, and so forth).

    That said, I personally tend to boldly remove red links where I see them from navboxes, and if someone thinks they're worth keeping (such as a number of the "content creators" above), I might enter into the BRD cycle with those persons. Subject matter experts I will also take into that cycle in general. I find that most genial editors don't care or are agreeable to removal of red links, especially when the rationale is explained to them about why red links in a navbox are undesirable.

    As regards "black links", I find the same rationale applicable: navboxes are meant to navigate, and black links don't help you do that. Users interested in a topic which one might expect to be covered in a navbox usually have a suitable list to review, or in some cases have the topic of the navbox to review. I have seen some frank messes of navboxes, and black and red links, and redirect and anchor links, are usually why. Fundamentally, it's a violation of the single responsibility principle to attempt to make navboxes do something which they are really bad at. --Izno (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Just to make it clear, I also oppose the exact proposal made, rather than the general suggestion of concern. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

    Re: 'what is "unquestionably going to be notable"' – I mean it is categorically notable (I forget where that list it, but countries, mountain ranges, etc.), or already passes WP:GNG (not by assumption, but by actually checking). 'if it were unquestionably notable, is there not a chance that the article should exist already?' – then it wouldn't be a redlink; i.e. it should have an article and will be someday, because already unquestionably notable. It's not true that all navboxen have zero need to be complete, I would say, but the condition is rare. It's more common that for many of them it's desirable that they be so. But for a large number of them (probably a high supermajority) it's impossible for them to be complete, either at all, or without loads of non-notable entries. In the latter case, if the NN entries are encyclopedic (are in a list article), then they can be included as section links to their entry in the list, eliminating the redlinking. Absolutely agree on this: 'People with the use case of creation of new articles should be encouraged to write a list article; a navbox is unnecessary and frankly undesirable for coordination of such work'. You experience of agreenableness to remove redlinks is much better than mine, heh. Agreed on black links; they're worse than red in practical terms even if less visually annoying.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

    As regards notability, I understood the point, I just wanted to agree that it's rather rare that something is notable, well-known, but doesn't have an article (as I noted, our coverage of biology is a fun case when you start talking about all of the species in a particular genus and start making the supposition that that set of information needs a navbox).

    Section links I have a problem with per the essay-guidance at WP:NAV.

    Regards my experience, a lot of my work regarding navboxes is related to cleaning the classes of content I noted above, such as fiction and works navboxes. I've very rarely been reverted on my WP:NAV-related changes to such navboxes. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

    I think you're just (happily for you) mostly editing in "popular" article areas. In some of the ones I frequent, there are hundreds of notable topics with no articles yet, because the subject areas are less "sexy". Pool players is one example; see WP:CUEBIOS for a list of the really obviously missing notable pro billiards/pool/snooker player bios (hall-of-famers, top world-class players, etc.). There are lots of topics like this. PS: See Template:Cue sports bios for one example of a navbox linking to just the most notable articles in the topic area, instead of being a huge redlink farm.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    FWIW, WP:MCB topics do have a fair number of redlinkful navboxes, like {{Protein tyrosine phosphatases}}, or collections of secondary metabolites. As a mechanism for encouraging article creation, a list article would be far inferior to a navbox that directly presents the redlinks to a reader with an evident interest in a very specific topic area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Opabinia regalis: I was thinking more along the lines of taxonomy than medical or organic compounds and chemistry. That said, I think there's also a mistaken assumption here also which may be being relied on by a large number of editors in this discussion: red links are rarely created by new users (because, well, they can't and haven't been able to in a while). So clearly such red links are only going to be filled in by (semi-)experienced users. And those users can just as easily create a list (either a stand alone list or an embedded one) to organize their work; again, that comes with other benefits that I've noted earlier in this context. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Anons can't create articles, but newly registered accounts certainly can. And there are plenty of opportunities in the taxonomy navboxes too: see e.g. {{Bacteria classification}}.
    I am baffled at this recurring theme that a list is a suitable replacement for a navbox whose contents are incomplete. The redlinks in a list are only visible from the list article (i.e., to pretty much nobody). The redlinks in a navbox are visible from a series of related articles, encouraging article creation by people with an evident interest in a very specific topic area. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Their in-yo'-face-constantly visibility to everyone constantly is why they're a problem in navboxes. Again, the purpose of navboxes is navigation. Redlinks directly hamper that functionality, while making our coverage look poor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's an argument against redlinks, not redlinks in navboxes specifically.
Their in-yo'-face-constantly visibility to everyone constantly is why they're a problem good thing in navboxes.—fixed that for you. Again, this is simply not even an argument.
while making our coverage look poor: in some areas our coverage is poor. It is not a good thing to "think of the children" and hide it from the po' widdle ignowant world. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, you've just perfectly summarized why I find the arguments against this proposal so unconvincing. You are essentially suggesting that we mislead readers about content coverage gaps (which they could potentially fill!) for the sake of personal aesthetic preferences. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The arguments against this vague proposal have barely been about "aesthetic preferences." Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Has nothing to do with aesthetics, but usability (and a touch of PR). These are templates for readers not editors. So, no my argument is not "against redlinks, not redlinks in navboxes specifically". It's very, very, very specifically about redlinks in navboxes, as such, and only navboxes. Just want to make sure that's really clear this time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Anons certainly can create articles - I created five or six drafts before registering, all of which were accepted. Alakzi (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    True, that should be "can't create articles directly in mainspace". Arguably, avoiding AfC is now one of the main benefits of registering for people here to do content work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I truly do not understand the hatred for redlinks shown here. The idea that the links in navboxes are _only_ for existing content is ludicrous and ignores the additional information that the redlinks can add, forex the other ships in the class or the other participants in the battle, for articles in my field. There were 68 Riga-class frigates built by the Soviets and there are only two blue links among all that sea of red. You cannot tell me that a reader is blinded by all those redlinks and cannot see if there's an article on one of those ships or not. The redlinks in the navbox are very handy for article creation and have a proven record of encouraging editors to turn them into blue links. I've used them that way myself to ensure that I have a properly formatted title, etc. when I begin writing articles. Deactivating the red links by turning them into ordinary text is even moronic because you've just removed the easy button for article creation. And all because some people dislike the color scheme?! Consider me boggled. I'm not much bothered by any perpetual red links; trying to keep them from being created is likely to cost more time and effort than would be required to set up a redirect. Editors can deal with that sort of thing as they happen, as far as I'm concerned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: There were 68 Riga-class frigates built by the Soviets and there are only two blue links among all that sea of red - That sort of topic is already allowed. The reason [for me] to oppose are topics like types of software, lists of software, bands in a given genre... with no real opportunity to provide sources in a navbox, many navboxes will inevitably become a free-for-all for spam and making things up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest support. Of course red links should be retainable in navigation templates. Of course. The proposal is so self-evident and reasonable I wonder why it needs to be documented. On all this page I don't see a single logical argument against it. There IS a lot of circular repeated verbal chaff about defintions and precedent and process and "what navboxes were MEANT to do" that reads like a parody of a wikipedia dispute. None of it is remotely convincing. Dr. Blofeld, sincere thanks for doing what shouldn't even be necessary. --Lockley (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support redlinks in navboxes (and anywhere else they might encourage article creation or enquiry; anywhere else on Wikipedia, that is, I don't want to open my front door tomorrow and be showered with redlinks). Belle (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakly Opposed - I see no strong need to change the current guideline. The guideline already allows redlinks in navboxes where the scope is a discrete and limited set (such as the example of Bach Cantatas). That is appropriate. In such cases, there is a high likelihood (even an expectation) that the set will be completed (ie articles on each member of the set will be written)... the red links are beneficial for highlighting which members of the set still need articles.
However, many topic areas that have navbox scopes are a lot less focused or are completely unlimited .... the list of potential articles within the scope is open ended. For navboxes in these topic areas, there is no discrete "set" to complete. A redlink in such cases would simply be a "request" that an article be written... with no expectation that anyone will ever write the requested article. In such cases, redlinks simply clutter up the navbox and hinder navigation to existing articles. Besides, Navboxes are not really the appropriate venue to post a "request" for an article... there are lots of other venues for that (the most appropriate venue being the relevant WikiProject pages). Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please try and argue coherently instead of resorting to terms like "bizarre". This proposal is going to open Wikipedia to a new round of non-contributing lazy users, this time ones who add random red links everywhere but don't create articles themselves. Like the ones who add "citation needed" tags everywhere but don't look for citations themselves. Your position is that just because you personally behave responsibly after adding red links that all users will behave the same way. I think not. The new guideline will create unproductive time sinks for editors who want to cull unsuitable red links, since the onus will now be on the person who wants the link removed to prove the topic lacks notability. It should be the other way round, with the person who created the red link being required to prove notability. If a topic warrants an article, it is no big deal for any competent editor to create a stub. If a red link remains red for a long period of time, that indicates the red link is achieving nothing and the topic should never have been red linked in the first place. A bot which scans Wikipedia from time to time, removing long standing red links would keep the red tide under control. Just what time lapse would be suitable would be matter for community discussion. I would think a few months, perhaps a year. Someone else on this page suggested a few days. If an editor thinks a topic should have an article but doesn't want to write the full article themselves, they should be encouraged to create a stub rather than just red linking it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You're working from axioms that don't have general acceptance, like the ridiculous idea that adding a [citation needed] could possibly be irresponsible. I've tracked down hundreds, if not thousands of citations. Yet I will not hesitate to add a [cn] to anything I see that requires citation, even if I haven't the slightest inclination to follow up myself. I wholly reject the very idea that that might be in any sense of the word "irresponsible", and suggest that discouraging the pointing out of unsourced text is itself irresponsible—and reprehensible. Your prejudice against redlinks is on similar shaky grounds—we do not need a bot going around to "keep the red tide under control"—the only way they should be controlled is to have human eyes determine the likelihood of the redlink ever becoming blue. Removing redlinks without first determining if they should have been removed in the first place is horribly lazy and irresponsible. I would strong oppose the very suggestion of any such bot. The only excuses for removing a redlink are (a) WP:OVERLINK and (b) determing through conducting the research that an article is unlikely to be sourceable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I actually said. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I did. I reject the very bases of your arguments: that those who add redlinks or [cn]s without the intention of following up are in any way "irresponsible", and that redlinks are "out of control" if they are not bluelinked within some arbitrary time frame. Redlinks and [cn]s are not bad things—they are no more than signs that there will always be work to do, and we have the rest of the history of humanity to deal with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing incoherent in what I said. Your theoretical portrayal of an excess red links as some kind of Doomsday scenario is just that, bizarre. We have thousands of experienced editors who can root any excess out. While we're here, creating a stub and leaving it is worse than a redlink, remember?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • Support – Agree heartily. Some things have a set, finite number of entries, and all of them are likely to eventually get articles. A navbox is principally for navigating between existing articles, but these aren't cases where someone is just going to make up stuff. These are known, limited sets of topics, and including a red link or two only serves to ensure that readers are not misinformed. And as always, red links let potential editors know that an article needs to be written. I often wonder if the push to remove red links without actually writing an article has contributed to the difficulty in recruiting new editors. Not only does it hide the fact that there's work that they could help with, but it's just generally hostile ownership-type behavior. Some people seem to forget that the English Wikipedia is never complete, and that there's no deadline. oknazevad (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you're actually "support" then, as it sounds like you are actually advocating the exceptions that are in the current guideline (e.g. just one or two redlinks, or a redlinks in a defined and finite series of articles in a topic), not the new proposal (or its variants) which will inevitably lead to even more Navboxes that are a redlink-a-palooza... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I explicitly support the more liberal language, as I feel that the current wording is interpreted by some far to restrictively, with common sense thrown out in favor of authoritarian interpretations and tortured attempts to claim the existing exceptions are not relevant, just because someone doesn't like looking at red text. If widening the guidance ends that foolishness, I'm all for it. oknazevad (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • these aren't cases where someone is just going to make up stuff. These are known, limited sets of topics - That's explicitly what this is not. Those are already allowed. Supporting this is what allows adding redlinks for topics that aren't known, limited sets. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already an exception for redlinks which "are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like." Isn't this proposal to extend the ability to include redlinks beyond that? I support the original version before the bit about navboxes was removed and oppose holding navboxes to a lower standard for inclusion than we do most list articles. What's at stake are lists of examples of a subject, like a list of bands or a list of websites. Since navboxes are also not supposed to be reference-heavy, what basis would there be to include/exclude redlinks? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Not really, as the language here contracts the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 June 2015‎
  • Could you clarify what you mean? The language here as in this proposal? Contradicts, I presume, but other what? Something I mentioned or something in the guideline? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Rhododendrites and McCandlish. A "sea of red" is equally if not more of a distraction to reading and navigation to a sea of blue. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ohconfucius:, again, did you not read the part about a sea of red links which far exceed the blue links being ill-advised?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Then I must take issue with your wording. Navigation templates are to allow for the navigation to existing content, and not incite the creation of articles. Whilst I agree with the example cited by TRM could and occasionally does occur, a template with a preponderance of red links really ought to have no place in any article except as a prelude to their imminent creation; anybody who creates a series of articles potentially listed in a template could arguably have created the articles in the absence of the template. The existence of one or two blue links in no way justifies a template with "a [unspecified or imprecisely defined] number of red links". ----Bond, James Bond 07:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although I don't think it goes far enough. The only redlinks that should be discouraged are ones that are unlikely to be turned into blue links. I have no problem with a "sea of redlinks", as long as their eventual creation is credible. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. We used to have a view that expansion was a good thing and means to encourage this, like "seas of credible redlinks", were a good thing. Instead WP now seems to be ossifying. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That's absolutely true. I can't remember where I saw it but I seem to recall Carrite telling us all that English Wikipedia's creation of new articles was starkly down on previous months/years. Is that really what we want for the project? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not too happy about red links in navboxes unless the editor who puts them there intends to see that they become blue links within a short space of time, i.e. days not weeks. The box is essentially for users, not editors. Users need information, not a link to article creation. There are alternatives to red links in navboxes: red links in the text of the blue-linked articles included (where at least basic facts about the missing item can also be provided) and comments on the template talk page. Hidden comments for editors on additional items for inclusion can also be made in the edit version of the navbox. Maybe projects like WP:Intertranswiki could also give special attention to EN navboxes which could be enhanced on the basis of their equivalents in other languages where many more items are covered. Finally, newly created navboxes with lots of red links can always be included in the sandbox environment (with links from the talk pages of related articles or WikiProjects) until the red links have been eliminated. Only then should they be included in the mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - A redlink in the article serves a purpose, a redlink in a navigation box, whose sole purpose is navigating to other articles, does not. A link with nothing to navigate to is inappropriate. This proposal would be taking a step backwards and allow justification for navboxes with little to no purpose to clutter up articles, diminishing the value of navigation boxes and creating a distraction for the reader rather than an aid. This proposal helps no one other than editors that wish to clutter up navboxes, it does not help the reader nor does it help an editor that wishes to create articles. - Aoidh (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Incorrect. I created 161 articles based on a redlinked navbox, 158 of which are GAs and 3 are FAs, all in just over one year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Hardly, that is not the purpose of a navbox, nor does your claim change what I said. Redlinks in a navbox serve no purpose and clutter up something that is meant solely to aid in navigation not as a "to do list" for editors. Unless you're suggesting we change the scope of what a navbox is for, what you're suggesting falls outside of that scope. - Aoidh (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you are wrong when you claim "nor does it help an editor that wishes to create articles" as I have adequately demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Creating a template full of redlinks and then creating the article aids no one, and all you did was make a claim, that's not "adequately demonstrated". It is also outside of the scope of what navboxes are for, which is the salient point in what I said. - Aoidh (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Problem is, you didn't make a salient point, at all. You made a claim, which was instantly refuted, with evidence. You lost that point, wholesale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    What evidence are you referring to? You made a claim, which was not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    Don't take the bait, Rambling Man. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with The Rambling Man. I created at least half the articles in Template:ScienceFictionFantasyWeirdPulpMagazines, most of which were redlinks when I built that template. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    "Sole purpose" according to who?!? What a lame tautological non-argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    That has been the longstanding consensus on Wikipedia for quite some time. Why else would this proposal even be necessary? Navigation boxes are for navigation. That not a "lame tautological non-argument", it's why navboxes exist. Using redlinks in an article is one thing, cluttering up articles with navboxes full of articles that don't exist is quite another. How can we expect a reader to dig through red links to find information when those who support this proposal can't even bother to "read very carefully"? A red link in an article changes what already exists from black to red, that's it. A red link in a navbox adds something that wasn't previously there and that does not exist; clutter. It may be argued to aid an editor (which is arguable), but it does not aid the reader, quite the opposite. If you feel that navboxes exist to aid the editor instead of the reader that's fine, you're welcome to that opinion but you don't have to respond to every single comment that opposes what you're supporting, especially with a comment like that. - Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    23 supports so far and widespread disregard for the guideline brings into questions just how strong this "consensus" ever was. Link to the RfC that led to this purported consensus, please? 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with Curly Turkey on this, but since consensus can change I don't think it's particularly important we see the prior consensus (though please do provide a link if you have one -- I'd like to read the discussion). If supporting this proposal goes against some definition of the purpose of a navbox, I think you can take it that those supporting it don't agree with that definition of a navbox. My definition would be more like "an aid to navigation to related articles, where those articles exist, and an indication that they need to be created where they do not already exist". I also don't like separating readers and editors as strongly as your argument implies; every single editor is also a reader, and we would like every reader to consider becoming an editor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Curly Turkey. A redlink should only be disallowed in a navbox if it would be disallowed in an article. Redlinks (for articles that are notable) are a good thing; there's no reason to except navboxes. I see some editors above are concerned that more navboxes may appear which are a free-for-all of lists of loosely related items. To me that's an issue that should be addressed by a discussion about navboxes -- if it's a problem, it's got nothing to do with whether the navbox contains redlinks. A poorly designed and low-value navbox is not somehow a better navbox if it contains no redlinks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely support - what's next, no red links in lists? Red links tell editors that the encyclopedia isn't complete and that we still have work to do. Excluding red links from navboxes can also deceive casual readers into believing that we present comprehensive coverage of topics when we don't. Wikipedia is a work in progress.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support. My first reaction to this was: changing a site-wide guideline because one or two people were doing something annoying is unnecessary WP:CREEP. But as the discussion has developed, a lot of the opposition is based on a strange belief in the One True Teleology of Navboxes. If the current wording is being interpreted in a way that defies common sense, then I suppose it should change. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Spot on yup. Robsinden is using it as a legal enforcement on why navigation boxes should have no red links. And when an editor is actively working on blue linking them to remove them does indeed defy common sense and is disruptive to development.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely support for all the reasons stated here, but primarily because I totally agree with Curly Turkey's reasoning that red links should only be disallowed if they would be disallowed in an article. I personally have experienced no hindrance of navigation from a red link, quite the contrary, it motivates me to write another article. SusunW (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I see {{IsraelCentralCommandChiefs}} as a clear case where the navbox has red links and it's useful for them to be there. It should be noted that such red links should only exist for pages where the subject would clearly be notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I find redlinks useful in navboxes (especially successive rulers/office holders), which give me a quick overview of which articles are still missing. -Zanhe (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Redlinks invite article creation. It doesn't matter if that's in a template or in the article space. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose While redlinks do invite creation, sometimes this is not a good thing. This is especially true when it comes to television articles. Editors often create episode articles simply to populate navboxes with redlinks and the articles usually fail all of our guidelines for creation. The purpose of navboxes is to facilitate navigation between existing related articles but, when a navbox is full of redlinks ease of navigation can be degraded, or we end up with navboxes full of redlinks. I was recently able to merge {{Homicide: Life on the Street episodes}} and {{Homicide: Life on the Street}} into a single, more useful template mostly by just removing all of the links to articles that would and should never be created. Of the 122 links in this revision of {{Homicide: Life on the Street episodes}}, only 28 were functional links (admittedly they were text-links, but this proposal would result in them being redlinks!). The other 94 were links to articles that would never exist. I accept that there are cases where inclusion of redlinks may be appropriate (there are examples in this RfC), and the current guidelines adequately cover this, but implementation of this proposal opens a new can of worms. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    AussieLegend, the proposal addresses the question of excessive amount of red links and takes concerns like yours into consideration. There is nothing in the proposal which would curtail the removal of most if not all of the 94 red links you removed during your work. Randy Kryn 10:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The wording is far too vague (yes, I know the proposal says "something along the lines of" but something completely different is needed):
  • "it is acceptable to have a number of red links" - What exactly is "a number"? Editor opinions will vary.
  • "an excessive number of red links which far exceed the number of blue links" - What is "far exceed" twice, thrice, four, 10%, 60%? If there are 5 blue links, does 10 red links far exceed? If there are 50 blue links, does 100 red links far exceed? {{NCIS television}} has 111 blue links. Suppose some editor decides to add every episode of NCIS: Los Angeles, even though only one episode article has ever been, and will likely ever be, written. Having done so, {{NCIS television}} now looks like this, with 255 links. There are only 33 more redlinks than there are blue links, which really isn't "far exceeding" the number, but the template is now full of redlinks sanctioned by the proposed wording.
  • "is ill-advised, and editors should refrain" - At best, that's very vague guidance that can and will be easily ignored.
  • "unless they are actively working through them and intend to fill them all." - So, an editor in good faith creates all of these redlinks, starts creating articles and then something happens and the editor doesn't continue. This is what happened with NCIS. There was a lot of activity creating articles in 2012 but, by the end of 2013 nobody was creating articles any more. Editors have good intentions that often come to naught.
  • "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in navigation boxes" - This is actually the first part of the text but it seems more appropriate to address it last. There is no set minimum number of links that a navbox can contain but the general rule of thumb is that if there are less than 5 there should not be a navbox. It's a rule that is often raised at TfD. A navbox with only two or three active blue links is unlikely to survive TfD so the proposed text is really saying "If a navbox exists it is acceptable to have a number of red links" and this is the opposite of what our guidelines currently say. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
" I was recently able to merge Homicide: Life on the Street episodes and Homicide: Life on the Street into a single, more useful template" -Great, in that case then you won't object to us merging the redundant Australian place infobox into a single more useful infobox settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with this RfC about redlinks in navboxes. Please stay on topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The the purpose of navboxes is navigation and redlinks don't provide any destination, pointless for navboxes. Also one point of redlinks is that we can see how many articles use that redlink and decide from that what redlinks should be prioritized for article creation. Redlinks in navboxes artificially amplify that count as now every article using that navbox is now part of that count. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support: the proposal supports what most content creators and new contributor mentors know: suggesting new articles through redlinks is a net benefit to the community. There is no reason to believe that navboxes are somehow exempt from this impact. Moreover, the arguments against the navboxes including redlinks ignore exactly what they communicate to readers beyond acting as a navigation tool: what we currently have in the encyclopedia, what is notable and should be included in the encyclopedia, and how these topics relate to eachother. Most of our readers do know what redlinks mean (or should, to become more literate in Wikipedia as a "work in progress"), and won't severely misinterpret the redlinks. Moreover, an aesthetic argument against this is absurd, in that we need people to see Wikipedia as partially broken, so that they have the same urge to fix it that brough all of us here as editors. Lets not get constrained by narrow reading of our own policies, Wikipedia should not become a bureaucracy, Sadads (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as presented - The existing exception that Alakzi cites above sufficiently allows for red links in series of information, as in {{Saturn Awards}}—and even that is sometimes pushing it (I assume the rationale is that to leave out the years without articles would suggest that the awards were not held in those years, but I don't know how necessary an individual article is for the 1983 11th Saturn Awards). But I think editors supporting this proposal are confusing the function of nav templates with that of lists or categories. They are NAVIGATION templates, and it's great if they can also be useful as "lists" of related topics, but that functionality shouldn't supersede or hinder their basic function just for the sake of a "complete" navbox.
In a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates someone suggested it would be an "error" to have a nav template without all related links because the reader is assuming it is complete and it is actually missing information (some examples given were {{Horse breeds of France}} and {{First Nations in New Brunswick}}). I see that point there, it is helpful to cover all aspects of the topic. But I say, create stubs for those missing articles. Or create a List of horse breeds of France that is linked on the template. Opening the floodgates on redlinks will, as others have suggested, result in some massive templates listing too many redlinks for the sake of "completeness". I have no problem with redlinks but I think we all know, realistically, that the criteria "articles likely to be created" is often grossly misinterpreted by well-meaning editors, and a redlink-filled nav template is a more of a hindrance/eyesore than a redlink-filled list.
The first example that comes to mind would be nav templates for writers or actors listing every one of their credits. {{Poul Anderson}} is a great example of what could happen; he is a prolific and notable author but only a relative handful or articles exist for his written works. The template seems to list everything he's ever written, in this case unlinked (I resisted removing the unlinked items because an editor was "working on it") but obviously a redlinked version would be ridiculous. Poul Anderson bibliography exists, and is linked on the template, so there is no reason to list them all again in the template as redlinks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And AussieLegend points out another great example of a potential problem, TV series episodes.— TAnthonyTalk 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi TAnthony. I'm the editor you mention, and that's not exactly what I said. My point is best explained with an example. Let's take the example of {{Iowa Secretaries of State}}. This template contains an accurate complete set of people, with 19 redlinks and 12 blue links. You stumble across this, what does a responsible editor do?
(1) Eliminate all those 19 redlinks. If you belong to the "no redlinks" and "navboxes are only for navigation among existing articles" crowd, that's exactly what you would do. This kind of thing has happened a lot. You would only leave the 12 blue links. Because that's what the policy says. To me, that edit is destructive and creates an error, because it leaves a confusing and misleading result. The template still says "Iowa Secretaries of State" but now it's only partially and randomly populated. Somebody else, months or years from now, will have to come along and clean that up.
(2) Stop and take the time to create stub articles for Elisha Cutler Jr., Josiah H. Bonney, and the 17 others. I see the value in that approach but I, and I suspect many others, have other wikipedia priorities.
(3) Leave it like it is. If you see it as responsible to leave this template in its current state, with its redlinks intact (perhaps to prompt some future editor to complete some articles), then you agree that leaving some red links are okay in some circumstances, and you agree that navboxes serve a purpose beyond strict navigation.
Interested in your response. Lockley (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lockley, I didn't mention you by name in my comment because I didn't want it to seem like I was "calling you out" LOL, because I was just using your comment as an example. Anyway, I totally get what you're saying, but the existing language of the guideline allows for {{Iowa Secretaries of State}} to exist with redlinks (and no challenge by me) because it is a logical group/set of data with specific parameters. Yet I would point out that the template is not named "ALL Iowa Secretaries of State", and so there is not necessarily the expectation of completeness. I mean, I have no specific opinion either way about this example, but there's already a redlinked list at Iowa Secretary of State; consensus may find that this particular navbox template is justified, but how many more are not, considering an equivalent list exists somewhere? I'm letting this crazy discussion play out, but I think it boils down to some people use nav boxes strictly to navigate and some see them as you do, and the sides cannot compromise. And some editors are really uncivil about it, by the way. I don't like this wide open proposal that the loudest people are fighting for because, no matter those that say otherwise, we are going to get a lot of navboxes overrun with redlinks that really don't need to exist. Heck we kind of already have them.— TAnthonyTalk 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
First TAnthony I truly appreciate your tone (somebody I can talk to!) so thank you. Second I think this is a really critical point of disagreement worth teasing out. You see a template called "Iowa Secretaries of State" and read it as "SOME Iowa Secretaries of State". I read it as "ALL Iowa Secretaries of State." I believe most casual wiki users would also assume completeness in such a template. To take it a step further "SOME" begs the question about "which ones?". It's not deliberately selected, it's a fragmented and random set based on whichever SoS's happened to have completed biographies. To me, that's misleading and illogical. Like you, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of extreme positions seen here. All best to you. Lockley (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lockley and TAnthony: Y'all realize, of course, that the Iowa secretaries of state example is covered by the "complete set" and the "succession" exceptions built into the existing language of the current guideline, right? If three or more Iowa secretaries of state are notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG, then a navbox that includes all former holders of that office should be permitted under the existing guideline. If someone is deleting links from such navboxes, then their interpretation is wrong, and I would gladly lend my voice to correcting their misinterpretation. This is the sort of informed discussion we should be having as part of this RfC, not the insults and name-calling that has become far too prevalent. I am convinced the real problem here is the failure to properly interpret the existing guideline in many instances, and have been over-zealous in enforcing that interpretation. Dr. Blofeld's proposal, while well-intended, takes us to the opposite extreme with no effective limits on red links in navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, you and I agree perfectly on this. And as we're fine with redlinks that fall reasonably within the existing guidelines, I think we're actually on the same page as Lockley. — TAnthonyTalk 23:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1 and TAnthony:. Yes we three concur -- and it's lovely to concur -- with one followup question from me. What about filmographies. I've had an editor, um, zealously inform me that filmography templates do not count as complete sets, and allowing red links there will lead to a sea of red, lake of fire, etc. etc. This seems slightly different and maybe more problematic than other complete sets. I'm willing to accept any answer there, really, as long as a casual user has his or her expectations set correctly when using the template. That's what I really care about. Lockley (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi TAnthony. First, there are no templates for actors. Some writer's templates, like the Poul Anderson example you point out, should and will eventually be culled back considerably. If this proposal is passed, and it looks like it is going that way, then subsequent questions regarding the extent and number of red links will likely be discussed and decided on this page and other template/red link pages. The Poul Anderson template will not look the same at some point, that is an extreme example requiring a non-extreme solution. Randy Kryn 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, given that the closure of this WP:RfC should be based on the strength of the arguments and not on the number of support votes vs. the number of oppose votes (mostly anyway), and that not all of the support voters are in full agreement on the proposed wording, why do you think that it looks like this proposal will pass? Hopefully, the closer does not simply base the outcome of this discussion on something akin to a headcount. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In which case, passing is guaranteed, as opposers' arguments are for the most part based on the tautology that navboxes are for navigation between existing aritcles because navboxes are for navigation between existing articles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I figured that, in response to me, if Randy Kryn didn't state that the oppose voters' arguments are weaker, someone else would. And my answer to that is that the view that the oppose arguments are weaker is incorrect. The support arguments are clearly weaker and flawed, and my opinion on that won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
they're not merely weaker—they're virtually non-existent. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you won't be closing this WP:RfC. We need editors who take the time to read both sides and to recognize whatever validity in them exists. To state that the oppose votes are "not merely weaker—they're virtually non-existent" is such poor comprehension of the oppose votes (it's either that or simply a bias toward the support votes, even the clear-cut poor support votes) that I see even less of a reason to debate you than I already did. So go ahead and get WP:The last word; I'll give you that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, since all the rationale supporting this change goes against the established properties of nav boxes as listed at WP:NAV, I'm not sure why you think this is a lock.— TAnthonyTalk 22:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
And requests to show where the purported "consensus" for that was built have been entirely ignored. The evidence suggests that (a) there is no consensus for that; and (b) there likely never was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

  • Comment on completeness of navboxes I think the "reader is assuming it is complete and it is actually missing information" problem is very, very important! {{Belmont Stakes}} is a case in point: until the recent edit adding black text of times where we have not race articles, one might think that a 140+ year race only existed since the mid-2000s! If people are offended by a sea of red, then at a minimum, black type needs to be included so that editors can add links to an existing template - and, for that matter, realize that there IS a navbox. The notion that, as in TRM's Boat Race navbox, articles can be created in "days" when there are dozens is a concept that could only be cooked up by someone who has never even created a stub! The wiki is never completed and a redlink can exist for years before the article gets created; that's not a crime! Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see this as helpful for navigation, and I also don't see how any reasonable reader is going to misconstrue the race as only having begun in the 2000s. If that's the question they are seriously asking themselves, they aren't (and shouldn't!) use a navbox to answer the question; they're going to Google and end up on Belmont Stakes which will tell them the actual information they care about--that the races started in the 19th century and has continued since in some form or another. A list of all races would also make it explicit; I see no list linked in the navbox but given the concern of misunderstanding there is obviously value in a list; presumably such a list might include the year and winner of each race. Such a list even exists, at Belmont_Stakes_Top_three_finishers, in the navbox in question. Said list should be more prominently linked in the navbox and should also have that sea of red links people may or may not want in this regard. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see this as helpful for navigation—could we drop this broken record? As if "navigation" in the ideologically strict and narrow sense of "navigating between, and only between, existing articles" were ever the sole purpose of a navbox. Nobody has ever been hurt by a redlink in a navbox, seeing the redlinks is at the very least informational (as in chronologies or list of counties), and they encourage by their visibility the creation of large numbers of articles. The problem? That they don't conform to your ideology. The solution? Dump the ideology. Navboxes are works in progress that are part of the work in progress that is Wikipedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Zero people are claiming red links are a "crime", so that's a non sequitur. They are claiming that a sea of red links in a navigational box is useless for the explicit purpose of navigation.
    Zero people are claiming one can create a half dozen stubs in a day. Or 1 stub in a year. Or whatever rate. They (at least I) are/am claiming that using a navigational box to organize that creative set of efforts is not the right tool [Izno's caveat: in the mainspace; no-one will care if the template in question is never used in the mainspace]. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Izno makes a good point in that we would be reinforcing the misconception that nav templates are always a complete summation of the topic or equivalent to an infobox, it's a navigation tool and not a list. Period.— TAnthonyTalk 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    Period. Question mark, rather, or should be, as you don't appear to have asked yourself why that should be so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, this proposal contradicts the established properties of nav boxes as listed at WP:NAV, and changing the function of a nav box is a bigger discussion than this.— TAnthonyTalk 22:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Established by whom? I've asked this already, and been ignored—likely because the purported "consensus" was never quite consensual. If you're argument boils down to "that's what it says at WP:NAV", then you simply have no argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to go back 10 years or whatever to determine exactly how the policy came to pass, but at this point it doesn't matter. The function and properties of nav boxes have been set down (with explanations) and followed since the days of yore, and you can't just say, "I don't like this and since I can't find the ancient discussion that set it up this way, it should be changed." Like I said, if you are challenging the very nature of them, that's fine, but then that's bigger than redlinks, that's a pro and con discussion why nav boxes should or shouldn't be like articles.— TAnthonyTalk 23:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Rather I'm welcome to ignore claims of a consensus where it has yet to be shown there ever was one. The overwhelming support this proposal has garnered so far and the widespread disregard shown for such an unsupportable prohibition show the "consensus" likely was never there, and certainly is not there now. Say bye-bye to garbage guidelines. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Navboxes are navigational tools, not lists. The content of a navbox should be limited to blue links with the barest minimum of additional information necessary to make the organisation of those links clear.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't understand the bit where you say " should be limited to blue links with the barest minimum of additional information necessary to make the organisation of those links clear". Readers all understand that links will take them somewhere. If the link is a different colour and it takes them somewhere yet to be created, that's initially disappointing, but hey, they might think... "you know what, I'll create that"! Cherish the thought, nurture the enthusiasm, encourage the creation! Alternatively, stick to keeping Wikipedia as small as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Words like "Albums" before a list of album links and "singles" before a list of links to singles. No red links, and no expositions in black. As for the rest of your comment, abusing navboxes doesn't have all of these wonderful side effects, it just makes them harder to use and monitor. There's all kinds of places where descriptions of things we have no article about make sense, but a navbox isn't one of them.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is small? Not in the least. Like I stated in the #Clarification of 'likelihood' section above, one of the reasons cited for the decline in Wikipedia editors is that so much of Wikipedia is complete; it covers so much already. In other words, when an editor thinks to create a Wikipedia article, it often turns out that a Wikipedia article on that topic already exists (which is also why Wikipedia gets a lot of WP:Redundant forks). So what is left is to improve the Wikipedia articles that we have. It seems that part of Wikipedia's success was that that WP:Newbies were more interested in creating articles that Wikipedia did not have than they were interested in improving the existing articles. And with Wikipedia as big as it is now, it saw a decline in those types of editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, to me, that's another GOOD REASON for redlinks in navboxes — wiki is far from "complete" (again, Belmont Stakes...) One reason for redlinks is precisely to avoid duplication; for example, when I began to edit wikipedia, there were three different articles on the Konik horse - we can't redlink categories, and absent a navbox, no one thinks to look for a list. A navbox with a redlink shows that an article should be there, but doesn't exist yet. Black text may be visually more appealing, but it's the red links that will enhance navigability in the long run by encouraging people to "finish" sets of articles. Again, User:The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles are a case in point. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that we should add red links to the navbox. What is so different about having red links in a navbox as opposed to red links in a See also section? Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as nobody's arguing that redlinks should be added to "See also" sections. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: Earlier on, I missed Curly Turkey's "It doesn't matter" argument, an argument that acts as if comparing similar matters, or rather matters that would be similar if implemented, is a foreign and/or invalid route to take (despite being a route taken times over in this discussion), but I clearly continued the WP:See also angle with my "02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)" post below. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your response is ridiculously unrelated to what I wrote, and extraordinarily difficult to parse grammatically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Also take note that, per below, any other snide remark he makes to me in this discussion (or, really, anything else he states to me in this discussion) will likely be ignored by me. In fact, anything else he states to me on Wikipedia has a good chance of being ignored by me unless I "have to" respond. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
But of course the slander will not cease. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support When you have a bestselling writer, sometimes they allow red links to his books that don't have articles, and sometimes people go through insisting it be erased. Its all about whatever random people are around at the time to argue. Looks ridiculous for many things to not have a complete list there. Even if not red links, they should still be there as text. Dream Focus 23:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support any wording that discourages people from "fixing" the encyclopedia by removing red links from articles where they have no familiarity with the content. Of course it's good to spend time with an article and attempt to improve it, and that may involve also removing some red links. However, interfering with editors who build good content is the worst possible activity that can be performed on Wikipedia, and rigidly applying a rather unimportant guideline is counterproductive. The comments accompanying the "London and North Eastern Railway locomotives" example above show how red links can develop the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask: Considering the problems that red links can and have caused (including problems noted in this WP:RfC), you consider the WP:Red link guideline "a rather unimportant guideline" for Wikipedia? Or do you simply mean the disputed text in question is rather unimportant? I see nothing rigid about using a navbox the way it is intended to be used -- for navigation to existing articles. Stating that we should be using navigation boxes to spur on article creation (especially given the fact that red links are often used by editors to ensure that an article be created even when that article should not be created) makes as much sense to me as stating that we should use the See also section to spur on article creation. I guess the WP:See also guideline is next; are we to move over there after this WP:RfC is closed and start a WP:RfC about how only using the See also section to take editors to existing articles is applying that guideline rigidly? The disputed text in question has an exception for the "no red links" application, just like the Disambiguation pages section of the WP:Red link guideline does. I highly doubt that these matters were not well thought out before implementation; my experience with the inappropriate ways that editors add red links tells me that they were well thought out. And considering all the WP:Disruption I see on Wikipedia day in and day out, I could not disagree more with the notion that "interfering with editors who build good content is the worst possible activity that can be performed on Wikipedia"; I've seen worse actions at this site, and there are plenty of valid times to interfere with editors who build good content on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
especially given the fact that red links are often used by editors to ensure that an article be created even when that article should not be created[citation needed] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I highly doubt that these matters were not well thought out before implementation: So dig up the discussion and prove it. This ain't the first time it's been requested. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
considering all the WP:Disruption I see on Wikipedia day in and day out ... there are plenty of valid times to interfere with editors who build good content on Wikipedia. Redlinking is disruptive behaviour, now, is it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
If you were a more experienced Wikipedia editor, you wouldn't need a citation needed tag for what is supposedly "the most fantastically outlandish of claims." Other editors have essentially stated what I stated in that regard above, and that should be your answer. If you think we are lying, that is your problem. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
So back up your claim. You've all failed to do so, despite multiple requests. If you can't back it up, then it's you're problem if the majority don't buy your flimsy position. — and that should be your answer: no, that is an evasive non-answer deserving of no respect. If you were a more experienced Wikipedia editor: please explain what that was supposed to mean. Are you claiming I'm an unexperienced editor? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And asking whether or not redlinking is disruptive behavior, given that the WP:Red link guideline is clear that it can be, and years of editing Wikipedia should have shown you the different ways that it can be, is so silly that I should not respond to you any further. But then again, you do like butting in to answer questions (or otherwise respond to comments) I have proposed for others, and in the most provocative of ways. WP:Baiting is clearly your style; but never the matter, I have much experience with those type of editors as well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
given that the WP:Red link guideline is clear: more of the same tautology? the guideline's validity is being questioned, and requests for the RfC that led to the guideline are completely ignored. Likely because there never was a consensus. If there ever was, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. I ain't holding my breath. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That the guideline was followed for years and worked well for years is proof enough of the previous WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The guidleine was not followed—that's why certain gunslingers have wasted so much time shooting down navbox redlinks. Seriously, Flyer22, put up or shut up: show us the consensus, or it never happened. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of "put up or shut up," where is the proof that the guideline was not followed? All of the oppose voters have surely seen that the guideline was followed. Your argument of "Oh, so many people were not following the guideline" is asinine. A lot of editors don't follow the WP:Logical quotation guideline either, as recently noted, and yet enough editors still follow it. A lot of editors don't follow a lot of WP:Policies and guidelines, but that does not mean that there is no WP:Consensus to follow them. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Instead of the continual dodging, how about you just show us that "consensus" that never existed? Oh, right, you can't, be it never existed. Meanwhile, a strong consensus to overthrow all that has safely built up on this page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. But thanks for once again showing editors that "a strong consensus" to you equates to headcount. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it equates to a slew of strong arguments from a large number of active, productive editors, versus dodging and tautology and unbacked claims. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your replies in this WP:RfC show your inexperience; you've been editing Wikipedia for years, with WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles to your name and yet you respond in such a clueless way with regard to redlinking. Dirtlawyer1 was absolutely right; you should know better. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You've completely discredited yourself with that one—your argument has no more substance to it than that someone disagrees with you (and a lot of someones, at that! 32 at present count, and some of the opposes are only opposed to the wording). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You discredited yourself from the start as far as this debate goes; all I did was point out how your inexperience clouds your judgment. And as for "your argument has no more substance to it than that someone disagrees with you (and a lot of someones, at that!)," nope, my testy one, that is how you have gone about this WP:RfC. Not me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be inexperienced in the use of language—your point is sinking deeply in a haze of gibberish. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your WP:Baiting or WP:Personal attacks; both make you silly and desperate. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You might want to watch who you accuse of personal attacks (and "desperate"!), Flyer22—you just got off swiping every editor you disagree with on this page with your "inexperienced" prattle—I merely pointed out that your gibberish is gibberish. Y'know, gibberish like redefining "inexperienced" to mean "anyone and everyone who disagrees with me". That's almost the definition of "desperate". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You stated that "you just got off swiping every editor you disagree with on this page with your 'inexperienced' prattle—I merely pointed out that your gibberish is gibberish." That is incorrect. I specifically called you inexperienced. And any Wikipedia editor who states that redlinking is never a problem, which is what you have essentially stated, is an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. If redlinking were never a problem, the WP:Red link guideline would not point to problems regarding redlinking and editors in this WP:RfC would not be pointing out problems regarding redlinking. Your attempts to make these problems out to be "gunslinging" and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationales are absurd. You know where I cited WP:The Last Word above? I invoke that again now; go ahead and get it, since I would rather never discuss a thing with an editor who immediately has to resort to WP:Baiting consisting of all kinds of snide remarks and WP:Personal attacks just to try to win an argument. If you had waited before you jumped right into such behavior, you would have gotten more respect from me. But some people do have impulse control problems. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
any Wikipedia editor who states that redlinking is never a problem, which is what you have essentially stated: What a pantload. I never stating any such thing. Just keep embarrassing yourself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And as for examples of inappropriate redlinking, examples were given above. AussieLegend, for instance, clearly offered good detail on that; seen here, here (with a tweak here). Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Clear if you buy the ideology. Murky as mud if you don't. The invalid redlinks AussieLegend points out would be invalid in the body of an article, too—thus it is not an argument against redlinks in navboxes specifically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to think of it as "not being blind." Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you do, but that's nothing resembling a coherent argument. Meanwhile, you ignored my rebuttle to the AussieLegend thingy you linked at. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments for redlinking in navboxes have not been coherent, and your mudslinging has not been justified. Any other time you reply to me, I will likely ignore you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Finally, an end to your circular gibberish. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding these add-ins, we've already established that you and I see the WP:Consensus policy differently. And as for AussieLegend's rationale, you are incorrect about what it is an argument for; his arguments are indeed arguments against red links in navboxes (you know, just like I'm sure he would argue that red links don't belong in the See also section either). Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The invalid redlinks AussieLegend points out would be invalid in the body of an article, too—thus it is not an argument against redlinks in navboxes specifically. - I'm having trouble following your logic here. If they're inappropriate in the body of an article too, which is acknowledging that they are not valid in a navbox too, then how is that not a valid argument that they're invalid in a navbox? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: So you just ignored the word "specifically" entirely? Even after having quoted it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I read it. I just don 't understand yopur "logic". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: It's not about logic—it's about reading comprehension. If they're inappropriate in an article, they're inappropriate in a navbox. It's not possible to parse my statement otherwise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: For anyone wanting more of an elaboration on what type of editor Curly Turkey is, see this little category he created because of our dispute above in this section. Yep, he also apparently violates WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, AussieLegend. I am no stranger to Wikipedia editors taking a dispute far too seriously and WP:Harassing me thereafter. And I know how to take care of my "fans", as many (including those watching my talk page) know. Flyer22 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The wording "Providing that there are at least two or three active blue links in navigation boxes, it is acceptable to have a number of red links." could leave us with a Navbox with 3 working links and 15 red links. I might be able to support a revised version of the proposal. Doug Weller (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral per this:

"Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system"

— The collaborative organization of knowledge, Communications of the ACM

Of course I have an essay called avoid excessive redlinks, but using them in navboxes looks perfectly fine. It doesn't matter wheter there are bluelinks or not in the navbox, there should still be some redlinks in it (as long as they follow WP:REDYES). --TL22 (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support -- redlinks are useful to build and develop the encyclopedia. They highlight what is missing, and act as placeholders. I find adding a redlink to a nav tmeplate when I don't have the time right then to create the article useful. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the vagueness of the original #Revision proposal, prefer the #Other approach proposed by myself, for reasons explained in that section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative of having black names not linked causes extra work that may not be done, and thus do a disservice to our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, especially when such links are to previously deleted articles; the navboxes would likely become bloated otherwise. Concur with Kww and Flyer22 that it wouldn't aid navigation at all through articles, and navboxes are not meant to be lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - There's nothing wrong with a redlink in a navbox as long as the target can conceivably sustain an article, and said article would meet WP:GNG by WP:V by WP:RS. The presence of redlinks indicates that an article is needed, and may indeed inspire an editor to create an article. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the redlinks satisfy notability, redlinking the not-yet-created articles in navboxes reminds all readers (even if they have no intention to create a new article) of what is still missing within Wikipedia and encourages some to actually create the missing article and help build the encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 10:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I have been glancing at edit summaries of this discussion for quite awhile because I was too busy IRL to closely follow its very intense activity. From the summaries, I anticipated this was a black and white discussion, but now that I have read the proposal and what everyone has said, I see that the proposal is (uncommonly) finely nuanced. Both sides generally seem to be thinking of the reader while some are emphasizing the utility of encouraging casual readers to become editors. Both are worthy goals and I can't see any value in putting one ahead of the other.
At WikiProject Oregon, I think we have stumbled upon a reasonable way to balance those two schools of thought. Originally, {{Protected areas of Oregon}} was much shorter (in 2007), and had perhaps 90% of the known state parks as redlinks:
All those redlinks inspired me to spend a few hours creating stub articles to eliminate redlinked state parks. For the next year or two, quite a few editors contributed substantial quantities of content—many were IP editors. By leaving those entries as redlinked articles, it would have prevented IP editors from helping (only auto confirmed users can create an article), as well as discourage registered editors who might be faced with a possibly daunting blank page. (Remember how hard it used to be to initiate an article?) By turning the navbox redlinks into bluelinks, interested persons have a place to add information whether they are registered or not.
The current state parks redlinks are due to new parks being identified. The other sections have grown considerably I think largely due to the large proportion of blue to red.
In this case, redlinks definitely helped to grow and improve Wikipedia while, at the same time, not many readers were faced with a wall of redlinks since that was there less than two months. —EncMstr (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Other approach

Redlinks in navboxes:

  • Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
  • Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
  • Apart from the previous, when two or more of the following questions are answered with no it is better not to add the redlink to the navbox:
    1. Will the navbox contain more bluelinks than redlinks?
    2. Will the navbox contain less than thirty links (redlinks and bluelinks taken together)?
    3. Does the redlink fill a gap in a consecutive series of similar topics?
    4. Is the redlink about a topic of similar or greater notability than the bluelinks in the box?

The above ruleset is my proposal to replace the current guidance on redlinks in navboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: what is the rationale behind the "less than thirty links"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. rationale for less than thirty links
      1. Something I read (tx. to Michael Bednarek)
      2. Avoid excesses like {{L. Frank Baum}} - that template should be split in somewhat more manageable portions, more redlinks would really, really not be changes for the better for such templates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm leary of riders on bills; unless there's a prior consensus for such a restriction, it should be left out of this proposal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
          • As there was no previous bill to that effect, there is no rider. I propose something that afaik hasn't been thus concrete in guidance thus far (WP:CLN#Navigation templates, Disadvantages No. 3 puts it mildly vague "Can become ugly ..., e.g. by ..., size, ..."). It is possible to disagree on the 30 link upper limit if it are all sensible bluelinks – adding redlinks beyond that is something I hope consensus may see as something better to avoid (unless when it's the only downside for the added redlink...). Yes, new approach proposed to get out of the circularities in the discussions thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
            • All the more reason to keep it clean and separate concerns. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              • As said, it would probably not work as a separate concern (for me it wouldn't), but put into perspective like the proposal does, it becomes very workable.
              Whether it was or was not proposed before is a (yawn) procedural discussion, afaics unrelated to the merit of the proposal.
              Whether there is a rationale for that part of the proposal is what was asked: I explained my rationale, and continue to see no reason for a pre-emptive exclusion of the idea from the proposal. Let's see what others think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Well, I support the idea in principle, but oppose the rider—the last thing we need is arbitrary numbers and more instruction creep to feed the WikiLawyers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              • I owe you an apology, apparently I misunderstood rider, and struck part of my first response above. As such I don't see it as a rider though: the concern in much of the discussion above is about arriving at unsightly navboxes, with low practical value because of the excess redlinks. So yes, at the core of the solution to get out of that, as proposed above:
                • Don't add a new redlink to a navbox that already has 14 redlinks and no more than 15 bluelinks (combination of #1 and #2) – note: it is this, and only this combination that would limit the further conversion of no-links into redlinks at {{L. Frank Baum}}
                • Don't add a 30th redlink to a navbox when that redlink is not also part of a series (combination of #2 and #3)
                • Don't add a 30th redlink to a navbox when that redlink refers to the type of secondary topics not yet covered by any article in the field of interest (combination of #2 and #4)
                • #2 as a separate rule does not impose limits for redlinks (and the number of bluelinks isn't even related to this guidance on redlinks in navboxes).
              I'm as opposed to instruction creep as the next guy (and am certainly sensible to the argument), but what I read in the discussion above is a lot of opposition to the current vagueness of the guidance: some editors delete redlinks from navboxes based on a misapprehension of current guidance, and so I sense a definite preference to have a ruleset that depends less on casual interpretation to avoid excesses. So I proposed a ruleset with a clearer framework, however with a rather broad upper limit. For that reason in a "combination of at least two no's" logic it is part of the framework as proposed, and not a rider. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              Items 3 & 4 in your list seem reasonable, but I don't see why a bluelink should be treated differently than a redlink -- in other words these seem to be strictures that might be applied to any link added to a navbox. I can't see any reason for items 1 & 2; and I think that's the point of many of the supports above -- many editors (myself included) don't see anything wrong with a navbox full of red links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              I do, and have added my !vote above for clarity. When you're about to create the 30th redlink in a navbox, I think it's a reasonable expectation that any editor would take a step back, and think, maybe time to start up some stubs before I continue to expand this box with more red. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I could get behind that sort of idea, but only if the proposal in the thread above were leaning strongly toward a consensus for allowing a bunch of redlinks. But it's not. So, we really only need the third of those four criteria, and the other one I outlined: A gap in a collection of article links that would actually be complete with it, which doesn't necessarily imply a consecutive order; e.g. a navbox of European cuisine article, with a couple of redlinks because we don't have an Luxembourgish cuisine (or whatever) yet. There's probably a way to write that into one point. PS: That said, I agree that some of the other criteria are good for links in general, not just redlinks. So, this is onto something, but not quite there yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • FYI, an old, but still correct, name for navboxes is "series boxes", so under the current guidance "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. ..." (bolding added) means, literally: no limits to any redlinks in any navboxes. So I think: fighting windmills with the original #Revision proposal. The only problem with the current "...are part of a series..." is its vagueness, i.e. its proneness to never-ending discussion as demonstrated on this page. So lets make it somewhat more manageable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not swayed by "an old name" arguments. The name changed for a reason, because navboxes are most often not used for series. Redlinks should be ok when there is a series or set, and most of the links are blue. That's a really simple rule, that requires no further detailia like {{ill}} linking and other criteria, burdens of proof, etc. KISS principle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Examples

{{Bach violin concertos}} has currently the following content:

One way to expand this template would be:

I suppose I'd find it much more useful to do something like this:

Yeah, I suppose redlinks are different from bluelinks from where I stand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On one hand, the bluelinks are pretty, bot on the other, there are a lot of redirects and it misleadingly suggests that articles exist when they do not. But either way, the point about redlinks is that there is a place for them in a navbox, IMHO. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree—redirects don't facilitate "navigation" in the narrow sense the opposers are promoting, nor do they promote creation and participation as they appear to be links to existing articles. I'm not opposed to redirects per se—I can imagine them being used to send readers to substantial subsections of articles relevant to the box but where the main article is not—but I don't see this as a "solution" to any of the participants' problems. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Redirects could be viable for navboxes, but red links definitely don't benefit navigation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS If you don't understand why editors add red links to navigation templates, especially if they intend blue linking them within a short time period you really have no place editing wikipedia. It's one of the most important things we can do to promote growth and ensure wikipedia is comprehensive as possible on here. If any given topic has notable missing articles, we need to start them to complete the big picture. Hiding red links helps nobody either and stunts growth. Amazes me how many intelligent people here come across as a bleeding imbecile in understanding this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should name them navboxes differently? How about topic-boxes, summarizing articles around a topic, blue or red? - For me, they serve more purposes than mere navigation, - I rather look there than in "see also" sections which are hard to maintain. I add a new article to a topic-box: it's visible in all related articles with one edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Revive "series boxes" (the name used until 2008)? Nah, don't think this is a discussion about the name, or that whatever would be solved by naming them differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
A big problem it would solve is ridding us of WikiLaywers out to obliterate redlinks because they "don't facilitate navigation". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:RM Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates → Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes? May seem like a logical next step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(a) They will when they become bluelinks, and they are more likely to become bluelinks if visible (and there is quantitative data to back that up, scroll up) (b) There is no reason the function of a box should be restricted to a literalist definition of "navigation", or even strictly to navigation at all (c) "Navboxes are boxes for navigation because navboxes are boxes for navigation" is a tautology. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • However, the redirecting bluelinks have an advantage for anticipated article creation too: shows where to begin starting from content already present in the encyclopedia, avoids creation of content forks, indicates where to leave a link to the new article, etc. (apart from the navigation advantage already mentioned)
Maybe quality of content is preferable over quantity of new articles? Creation of new articles, or shear number of articles should never be a goal in itself. IMHO, this has never been about easy navigation alone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Both quality and quantity are goals of Wikipedia—they aren't in conflict. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Quality can be improved without thinking about quantity (e.g. removing whatever is superfluous), quantity, on the other hand, can never be increased without thinking of quality. In this context "both quality and quantity are goals" is a platitude. I wrote "...number of articles should never be a goal in itself" (bolding added). OTOH, improving quality can be a goal in itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a platitude—it's a fact, and tangential to the issue of redlinks in navboxes. As someone who's brought seven articles he created from scratch to FA, and has done the same for several former stubs, you're not going to convince me that article creation has the slightest negative impact on quality. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Afaik the definition of a platitude is a fact that is tangential without adressing the topic.
Re. "not going to convince me that article creation has the slightest negative impact on quality": AfD? CSD? that takes a lot of resources of Wikipedia volunteers, these efforts would be better spent adding quality content. So if the creation of an article that under any normal expectancy is due for deletion can be prevented I'm satisfied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for clarifying: your beef is against redlinks themselves. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
No, see above #Other approach, which favours intelligent redlinks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea to have a redirect to from where an article might start, but looking for BWV 1044 and landing on top of Keyboard concertos doesn't help too much, even with the number in lead and TOC. Same for BWV 1044, btw. How about Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Concerto in A minor, BWV 1044 instead, IF? I doubt, however, that we need individual articles on these concertos. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "I doubt, however, that we need individual articles on these concertos," indeed, as said, another advantage of redirect bluelinks is to not make it too easy to create unnecessary doubles.
    Re. BWV 1044: deep link fixed, but yeah I should have used more optimised redirect links in the example.
    I think some of them are eligible as separate articles: BWV 1044 and 1045 probably, I suppose also an article that treats Bachs reconstructed concertos would be welcome and/or one on 1060R (which afaik is far more known in its reconstructed state than the original harpsichord version). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    An attitude I had about most articles on ukiyo-e pictures—I shrugged it off when Crisco encouraged me to make some, until I was egged on to do Three Beauties of the Present Day and found, in my research, that enough sources exist to create literally hundreds of such as-yet-uncreated articles. The credibility of an article should not be rejected until the research has been conducted and the unviability of the article determined. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Good point: for navboxes I think the responsiblity for at least a tentative viability research should be by the one considering to add a redlink to a navbox. The difference is pretty much in the eligible for redirect, which is less of an issue in the body of an article text, but imho should be checked before adding a redlink to a navbox. Also the reason why I proposed to put some numerical limit to redlinks in navboxes is that at the latest by the 30th redlink there would be a reflex to maybe start some viability checking, and not leave that work to others for hundreds of redlinks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    The problem with numbers is (a) they're arbitrary (b) they're prone to literalist WikiLawyering (oops—you hit 31 links—time to start decimating redlinks!) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    The preliminary viability check for redlinks in navboxes seems like a sound principle to me, there are maybe other ways to incorporate that in guidance than the numerical approach. Any suggestions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's a good principle, but, of course, impossible to enforce. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Just thinking out aloud, maybe redlinks in this format could be suggested for navboxes: Violin Concerto movement in D major, BWV 1045 [draft] / Violin Concerto movement in D major, BWV 1045 [scores], where the parenthical bluelink shows as well a viability check as some basic material for an article - and disappears automatically when the article is created. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    That sounds like a good idea: establishing intentions or notability. The list of composers by name accepts entries for people with an article in any language. The proposal below is too complicated for me to support. 3 of 4 yes requires to read 4 and answer 3, - while I think just the last one would be enough to support inclusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated proposal

Redlinks in navboxes:

  • Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
  • Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
  • Apart from the previous,
    present the redlink in the {{ill}} format as explained below, e.g. Violin Concerto movement in D major, BWV 1045 [draft] / Violin Concerto movement in D major, BWV 1045 [scores], with the parenthical link giving some idea on what base the article could be started
    --or--
    Add the redlink only when at least three of the following questions are answered with yes:
    1. Will the navbox contain more bluelinks than redlinks?
    2. Will the navbox contain less than thirty links (redlinks and bluelinks taken together)?
    3. Does the redlink fill a gap in a consecutive coherent series of similar topics?
    4. Is the redlink about a topic of similar or greater notability than the bluelinks in the box?

See above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Replaced "consecutive" by "coherent" per a remark given above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The part about adding the {{ill}} note to redlinks has potential. The "fill a gap in a consecutive series" is a good basis, as is the notability criteria. The "less than 30 links" standard is not suitable (141 Kentucky Derby races to write about, maybe half of them done, and it's going to take years, probably) and the "more redlinks than bluelinks" might be grounds to not add it to an article, yet, but I think it isn't grounds for creation... Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{KentuckyDerby}} passes #1, #3 and #4 of the "three yesses" provision, where is the problem?
Note, however, the problem with several of the "by year" articles on individual Kentucky Derby editions: they seem to derive their notability exclusively from primary sources (no third-party sources mentioned in the article). I don't say such problems can't be coped with, only that "en masse" creation of separate edition articles seems not to be the first thing to do now.
"1954" would also make more sense for inclusion in the template than the current "1954" (to give only one example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplified

per Gerda's above "...too complicated...":

replace the current last sentence of the second paragraph of WP:REDNOT ("An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like.") by:

An exception is red links in navboxes when the editor that adds the redlink accepts the WP:BURDEN to show that an article is viable, e.g. by using an {{ill}} template as explained below.

That's the simplest I can come up with for now – other ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No, I think it would be much better to reduce it to:
    • Don't add redlinks for articles that, when created, would most likely be deleted or converted into a redirect (relevant: notability, naming conventions, CSD, AfD,...)
    • Don't add redlinks for articles that are extraneous to the topic of the navbox
  • The {{ill}}s aren't a bad idea, but they should be encouraged rather than required. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Success rate for Ill template in navboxes

Super-simple proposal

Let's try this: I propose we remove the navboxes from the "Red links generally are not included" section of WP:REDNOT precisely as Alakzi edited before it was reverted here. Montanabw(talk) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator: My thinking (which is not part of the RfC, which is a simple yes/no on the language above) is that further discussion of if, what, when, how, and how many redlinks should be in a navbox can then go to the talk page of WP:NAVBOX for development of further guidelines. It is clear that there is a rough consensus to allow redlinks, in some fashion, in navboxes, but the devil is in the details, which everyone is arguing about. So let's remove the near-blanket prohibition against them here. That should stop the problem caused by the editor who made mass changes to multiple navboxes due to the current (protected) version of the guideline. Montanabw(talk) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, I appreciate your attempt to create a simple solution that would address Dr. Blofeld's concern without creating an overly complex guideline. The problem with your proposal is that it will permit the creation of navboxes that are 90%+ red links, and I cannot support that. My simple alternative would require navboxes (a) to have a mandatory minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles or lists (and excluding redirects and section links), and (b) at least 50% of the links within a navbox be blue links as previously described. It is also important to remind everyone that WP:NAVBOX already requires that a navbox be supported by an existing main article or list on the main subject of the navbox; otherwise, it is subject to deletion at TfD, as you already know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support' - seems entirely sensible. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - navboxes, for the most part, cover the career of the person, subject, etc of the article that they are placed in. WikiP may not have an article for every part of said career but per WP:REDYES redlinks actually encourage content creation. That is not possible if they are removed entirely. Remember WikiP is ever evolving. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—the best of all possible proposals, and I've given my reasons ad nauseum above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Totally agree with the nominator. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navigational boxes are for navigating between articles. They should not be to-do lists that clutter up articles and distract readers from actual content. The current wording does not prohibit them outright, but they should be included only with good reason. A red link in an article changes the color of existing text, it doesn't add any additional text that a reader would see. A red link in a navigational box adds clutter. - Aoidh (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Solves the immediate problem. Belle (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Solves nothing, neither the remainder of the paragraph in this guideline, nor the practical guidance provided in WP:EXISTING. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That's the whole point of the RfC: to throw out the anti-redlink portion of WP:EXISTING. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes I know, but the RfC is about WP:REDNOT, not about WP:EXISTING. If redlinks for navboxes go unmentioned in the redlinks guideline, whatever leverage to influence the WP:EXISTING essay is gone. And the remaining guidance in the essay is what editors will turn to when assessing whether a redlink is desirable in a navbox or not (while there are no "guideline-level" statements about it left). In fact that strenghtens the applicability of the essay. What I say is that we need a mentioning of redlinks in navboxes at guideline level (whatever minimal that mentioning is). The proposed solution in this second RfC about the same guideline section can be qualified as "going in denial", not something I'd subscribe to. When a change to the guideline is needed, hashing out an appropriate replacement is imho not something that can be avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I see your point, but how many times can we restart these RfCs? People are going to stop participating. The spirit of the RfC is to allow redlinks that would otherwise be allowed in articles, restricted to relevance to the topic of the box. How much hairsplitting over the wording can we put this spirit through before people give up and allow those with the loudest voices and greatest stamina to gain their preferred "consensus"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Curly Turkey, given the frequency and vehemence of your comments above, and their often personalized nature, perhaps you should consider whether you are one of "those with the loudest voices and greatest stamina" who are determined "to gain their preferred 'consensus'". You need to dial it back a notch or two in this discussion in consideration of WP:CIVIL. Yours is not the only valid opinion being expressed here, and derision, sarcasm and mockery are generally not the best way to gain a consensus with which everyone can live. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I'll defend Curly Turkey. Because here's my whole experience with this red link thing. There's a number of rigid true believers in "One True Teleology of Navboxes" as somebody said above. I've tried to discuss this on other pages, with a willingness to see the other point of view. You might as well have a nice cup of tea with a buzzsaw. Instead of discussing the thing on any basis of common sense and good faith, they cite policy over and over again, policy that (what a surprise) they've helped develop and rigorously defend. Yep this debate has lapsed into derision, sarcasm and mockery. Any editor who has dealt with these rigid true believers with their loud voices and shocking persistence could have seen that coming. As to Curly Turkey, mainly I see him defending himself. Lockley (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, see what I wrote further up if that is too simple, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, although we don't removing mention of nav boxes as a way for editors to reinvent the guidelines and claim there was consensus against them. I think there needs to be nothing which makes it clear that it's generally fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is increasingly apparent from this discussion that a number of the supporters of these proposals want no limits whatsoever on red links in navboxes. I cannot and will not support any revision that permits the creation of navboxes in which red links predominate. If someone would propose a simple standard of a minimum of three blue links and no less than half of the total links included must be blue, we could wrap this discussion with 85 to 90% support of all participants. Instead, we have about a third of the participants asking for exceptions that are already covered by the existing language of the guideline, and another third who are determined to change the language in a way that would support the creation of navboxes with 90+% red links. I'm ready to start my own alternative RfC with my "simple" and easily understood standards and then ping all previous discussion participants to reconsider their support of these misbegotten proposals. It's time to get reasonable, boys and girls, especially when it is obvious that something like half of the support !votes are based on a misunderstanding of the existing guideline and its exceptions, as well as what the proposed revisions will permit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment: Remember WP:AGF here, Dirtlawyer. Nothing in this proposal stops WP:NAVBOX guidelines from being discussed to refine issues. The current guideline was originally placed without consensus of affected participants and has been abused by being taken far too literally. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Montanabw, I'm not sure what AGF has got to do with this. There is a small minority who believe that no red links should be permitted in navboxes beyond the present exceptions. There's a larger minority who believe that all red links should be permitted in navboxes with virtually no limitations. And then there is a sizable plurality who believe red links should be allowed in navboxes, but with reasonable limitations. I fall in the latter category. Which are you? If you believe that red links should be permitted in navboxes without limitation, you're right, we're not going to agree. If you can accept reasonable limitations, then there is plenty of room for discussion, alternative proposals, and compromise that could lead to a strong consensus that accommodates all of the concerns of the reasonable parties.
Furthermore, I urge you to read WP:CONSENSUS in its entirety, taking particular notice of the following excerpt from it:
Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted.
I am very conscious of those MOS edits, made a single editor or supported by a small handful, that purport to have project-wide consensus and enforceability. Such edits have all of the hallmarks of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but their supporters often claim they are the equivalent of scripture. Such is not the case here; the present wording of this guidelines has been in place for all of my six years on-wiki without challenge. Clearly, consensus can change, and that's part of the reason we're having this discussion, but claiming the original wording was not supported by past consensus is a fallacy given the definition of consensus above. Now, let's talk about how we can address the problem of over-zealous enforcement of the guideline without gutting it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There's a larger minority who believe that all red links should be permitted in navboxes with virtually no limitations.: there is no such minority—even the most extreme of us are opposed to redlinks that (a) would be disallowed elsewhere in the article; or (b) are only tangentially related to the topic of the box. Nobody on this page supports adding specious or capricious redlinks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: You do realize that the existing language of the guideline permits red links for subjects that are part of a succession (e.g., all of the presidents of Malawi), or a defined set (e.g., all U.S. presidential elections), right? Most of us do not oppose all red links in navboxes; we oppose navboxes when they are 90%+ red links -- those navboxes do not serve the primary purpose of a navbox, which is to facilitate reader navigation among existing articles. Both of the proposals on the table would permit navboxes that are virtually all red links -- that's just plain goofy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am aware of what the guideline says. Even if I thought that redlinks should be strictly avoided in navboxes outside of these caveats, which I do not, I would still support this RfC. To say that redlinks are permitted in navboxes in these particular cases - which are a lot of navboxes, though I don't want to guess precise numbers - but then say that "Red links generally are not included in ... navigational boxes" is problematic at best. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: Okay, good. You're an informed consumer; I can appreciate that. How do you feel about whole classes of navboxes, outside these defined exceptions, that are almost entirely red links? Is a navbox with two blue links and 48 red links acceptable to you? If you believe that "red links generally are not included in ... navigational boxes" is problematic at best, can you understand that a navbox that is almost entirely red links is also problematic at best? Is there room for a reasonable compromise here, or do you believe that a 50-item navbox with 48 red links is acceptable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, the question may be "irrelevant" to you, but, in fairness, the question was not addressed to you; it was addressed User:J Milburn, with whom I was having a discussion, not an !vote, to sound him out as to the potential for compromise. There is a great deal of confusion here, including many support !voters who clearly do not understand that (a) most cases of red links in navboxes are already covered by the exceptions built into the present guideline, and (b) the proposed changes would permit navboxes to permanently exist with two blue links and 48 red links (my example). I've read the comments by the supporters, and it is pretty clear that many do not fully comprehend either the present problem or the consequences of the proposed cure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi, we delete a handful of mostly red-links navboxes at TfD every week. And they should be. If you want examples, I would be happy to review the last six months of TfDs and get you a list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a list of such boxes that would have survived if it were not for the wording proposed here for removal. If none of them would have survived anyways, then your comment has no relevance here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We delete navboxes for having too few blue links, but not having too many red links, as a ratio. Basically, I'm struggling to think of any navboxes which wouldn't be exempt from WP:REDLINK, the way that it's currently worded. Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Dirtlawyer, as you know, supporting this RfC does not mean that consistency forces me support the existence of whatever navbox someone cares to dream up. I stand by what I said further up the page: "Yes, there are going to be edge-cases, but these can be dealt with individually- the guidelines should not be standing in the way of redlinks in navboxes." Josh Milburn (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: I, too, believe there should be room for red links in navboxes, but with reasonable limits. That's why I'm having this conversation with you. The question is where the "edge" falls. Would you support a minimum three blue links, with no less than 50% of the total included links being blue? Personally, I think that's extremely reasonable, especially in light of the succession and set exceptions already built into the rule. Is there some appropriate use of red links in navboxes you believe would not be accommodated by such a simple guideline, coupled with the succession and complete set exceptions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer: Per WP:CREEP, I'm not sure a guideline in the style of "x links must be blue where x is greater than y and lower-or-equal to z% of total links, with exceptions for cases A, B and C, and a partial exception for case D, in which..." is a good idea. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: as of now, 9 supports, 3 oppose, and more waste of bandwidth. Everyone here understands everyone else's point of view, there is little sense continuing to beat each other over the head about it, and attributing (or, more likely misattributing) motive to each other is not helpful. The point is simple: WP:NAVBOX is the place to develop appropriate redlink guidelines for navboxes. Not here. The current wording is creating problems because some editors seem bent on going through navboxes and removing all redlinks, citing this guideline, and also editing the WP:HAVBOX page, citing this guideline. So toss the guideline and let the people who care most about navboxes thrash out the rest there. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Montana, no valid RfC, with project-wide consequences, is conducted and closed in 24 hours, nor should it be closed within 24 days. This is not a small issue, and, quite frankly, I am prepared to start my own alternative RfC, and post wide notice to the many affected WikiProjects, many of which will not be happy with the anything-goes approach that is being proposed here. It is obvious that many participants do not fully appreciate the consequences of these proposals as presently worded. And, no, it's not a "waste of bandwidth" unless you don't believe trying to achieve common ground that accommodates all of the reasonable concerns of the participants is a worthy goal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:REDLINK is not really a style guide, nor is this about a naming issue, so I added "|policy" to the RfC template, to have this posted on the policies & guidelines RfC list, suppose that's OK? As this is a template issue I also added "|tech", if there are no objections to that either.
Re. "some editors ... editing the WP:HAVBOX page, citing this guideline." – The last edits to the WP:NAVBOX page were a month ago (regarded external links in navboxes): afaics nobody edited that page w.r.t. redlinks for the last year or so I checked, nobody defended an update of that guideline on its talk page (there was a question about the implementation of WP:EXISTING handled a few weeks ago), so no the current wording "creating problems" there is completely unfounded.
Re. "little sense continuing..." – if you want an early close to this RfC initiated only today, take it to WP:ANRFC, and let someone else decide (personally, I'd close it on sight for interfering with another RfC that has been running for about a week, continues to have comments and has recently some alternative solutions posted - but can't close it while an involved party - FYI, I'd close it on a "no action", and let the other RfC run its course first). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose red links are nothing but unnecessary clutter for navboxes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Will be taken as a green light to redlink like mad, and would torpedo the progress we've made here. Moving the discussion somewhere else doesn't resolve the discussion, and removing a limitation from a guideline in the hope that something sensible will come out of a renewed fight on a template talk page, in the sudden absence of any guideline, effectively just throws fuel on the fire. The current discussion is about how to narrowly tailor a "some redlinks are sometimes OK in navboxes" exception. I think we have considerable progress on that. THere's clearly a consensus for permitting it in cases of completion of some kind of group or series, at least if most of the template is blue links. That's enough to work with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, I doubt it; the problem was one editor going through navboxes and removing all redlinks, taking the guideline far too literally. By simply removing the comment here, it can be properly addressed elsewhere. Where individual navboxes have too many redlinks and it's a problem, that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I don't see a mass movement to create navboxes with a 10:1 redlink ratio; most are created after a series of articles exist. Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • But too many aren't, including in the very area where our editing usually overlaps: animal breed articles. See, e.g., Template:Goat breeds of China. It's highly unlikely that most of those potential entries would pass WP:GNG, if anyone ever bothered to try to write them at all. Many comparable stubs we do have, e.g. a lot of the blue links from Template:Goat breeds of Italy, probably also fail GNG. Most of them could and probably should be combined into a list article, their content is so sparse. Just because something exists doesn't mean we need a whole article about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • If any of those goat articles would fail GNG, they be de-redlinked anywhere else in the article. The issue is their non-notability and has nothing to do with boxes—as your own example shows, if the goat breeds of Italy are invalid but bluelinked, giving the impression there are valid articles out there (as would a box full of redirects). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, first choice. Make guidelines simple, not more wordy. Oppose instruction creep. Good! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer's proposal

@Dirtlawyer1: please write down your proposal as you would like to see it inserted into the guidance (also please indicate where and replacing what). As to the content of what you've been proposing thus far I think it has merit, but will wait to give an appreciation until I've seen it written out. (note: please don't use my user talk page for this). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have to suggest that we don't need another proposal. We need to assess what we clear do have consensus for and implement that and see where it leads.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What do we actually have consensus on?

I'm pretty sure that after all the above we have clear consensus on a handful of points that can be expressed in one simple sentence:

  • Red links in navigation templates are permissible in a sequential series or complete set, when most of the links are blue, and red-linked entries are likely to eventually be articles that would not be deleted.

This is enough to work with for now, and I don't care if it's worded precisely that way or not. The key phrases are "sequential series" and "complete set", and two other key points are likely to eventually be articles, and would not be deleted. Note the conspicuous absence of the word "only" before "permissible"; if such a rule proves over time to be a little too narrow (or too broad, somehow), it can be adjusted. And guidelines are just guidelines anyway, not laws. The above sprawling discussion is an object lesson in not trying to shoehorn every possibility into one rule at the same time, especially when starting with broad disagreement over what should or shouldn't be encouraged or deprecated at all. WP is not Congress or Parliament. Note also that this is phrased as a positive: allow these cases, not disallow all cases but these. We can have consensus to allow these, without this affecting the possibility of allowing other cases, after later, more narrowly focused consensus discussions.

Frankly, it doesn't even matter if some would be redirects. If there's a navbox with 1970, 1971 ... 2014, 2015, in which the 1970–1975 targets all redirect to sections in a list article because full-scale articles on the early events in question have not been developed yet, no one cares. It would be perfectly fine to replace them with a single 1970–1975 link, but there's no necessity from an encyclopedic standpoint to prohibit individually linking them. Let's just stop fighting and move on, see how it works. No food grows if we plant no seed until winter arrives because we keep arguing about what to plant and where. All this other stuff about trying to require an exact X number or Y% minimum ratio of blue links, or to repurpose the {{ill}} template to indicate drafting progress, and blah blah blah, is not going to get us any closer to actually implementing anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for summarizing this. I am writing to chip in an example of a coherent set where a navbox might have a lot of redlinks, with the proportion of redlinks fairly high at the beginning of a year. The template documentation says "Note that months which have not yet begun will be redlinked per discussion here." With possible exception of just the following year getting added sometime in December by someone who understands templates, not all future years are listed, but the template format works a lot better and gives the pages a more consistent navigation when future months in the current year are redlinked. --ProtectorServant (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable case, though I think it wouldn't be hard to code that to actually do date tests, using numeric months, and not display stuff until the month in question has been reached.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative support. I'd like to see what other editors might have to say, but at face value this sounds pretty sensible to me. DonIago (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not asking people to vote yet again (too many participants have moved on to other things). I'm just summarizing what I think there is indisputable consensus for. This is basically an aid to the closer, and should serve in that capacity if no one objects that they're certain I'm wrong on something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Who what now? Just have to say I do not have the time to read this massive wall of text, I have no idea what's going on with it, will find out when it closes, and am not a lawyer and am not intending to play one on Wikipedia. Common sense, a slightly expanded allowance for all points of view, and pointed in the direction of further real or potential information into the project seem to cover my outlook at it, and whatever happens with this red link walkabout please let editors know. Randy Kryn 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If your head asplode from two short, simple paragraphs, summarizing a dozen screenfulls of blathering, you probably need a new hobby, given that WP consists almost entirely of millions of pages of paragraphs of text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I had ridden the mouse all the way down past those dozens of screenfulls to where I came to rest here and commented. My hobby life is fine, but the walls of text which show up in many "policy/guideline" wanderings are often so extreme that they seem to drive out the uninitiated and leave the playing field open only to the walloftexties. Every once in awhile I'll find a space in between to comment, but then forget where I've commented as I see the next wall of text come upon policy discussions like a wave. It really shouldn't be that complicated to cut off a comment or two once in awhile with the fewest words possible, aye. Randy Kryn 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • red-linked entries are likely to eventually be articles that would not be deleted. How is one supposed to whether a future article is not going to be deleted? If we could determine that, we wouldn't need AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Just read WP:GNG. It's pretty simple, as are most cases that go to AFD (usually for failing GNG).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not as simple as reading GNG, which I've done more times than I can count and, based on the number of times I've been involved in AfD discussions, claiming that it is simple is unrealistic. Plenty of articles are created in good faith and edited by multiple editors who think the articles are quite OK when they fail multiple guidelines and should be, and eventually are, deleted. The simple fact is that when creating navboxes, whether or not an article is likely to be deleted is often a subjective view. That's why we have AfD. If you want to see how subjective, have a read of User:AussieLegend/The West Wing. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I could live with the wording proposed by SMcCandlish, though I think that's basically the guideline for redlinks in general ("not be deleted") and hence simpler is better and so (naturally! ;-) ) Prefer my version. Leaves room for common sense. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – don't see a clear advantage over the current content of the redlink guideline. I suppose that any proposal that needs more than double of the explaining than the proposal itself will probably not be clear at face value for the casual editor seeking guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I have full-protected the articlepage for a couple of days to stop the edit warring by established editors on what is, I feel, a tangential and trivial subject. I hope, in retrospect, that everyone will calm down and settle this over a nice cup of tea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: What article? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry, force of habit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, you might need to full-protect the page again. Like I knew would happen, soon after full-protection expired, an editor (in this case, Dr. Blofeld) removed the text that is still being debated, acting like WP:Consensus has been established or will be established for the removal. I reverted to the long-standing text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that protecting this page was also discussed on your talk page, as seen here and here. Based on things stated there, I will go ahead and request protection at WP:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Requested. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be no consensus for the previous wording; though its removal might've been premature, I don't see what restoring it would accomplish. Alakzi (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
There is also no WP:Consensus for the proposed wording; note my commentary above, in the section now titled #Arbitrary break 2, where I state that the WP:Consensus policy is clear that consensus on Wikipedia is not about a vote (headcount); at least WP:Consensus is not solely supposed to be about that. You noted the following on Ritchie333's talk page: "I don't see how that's the 'wrong' version. Before Richard took that part out in April (without asking), it had been there since at least July 2011. I'd say, page protection appears to have been quite sensible, given the circumstances." You were correct. I see no problem with following WP:STATUSQUO until the WP:RfC is closed. If the WP:RfC closes as "No consensus," and it likely will, then the previous wording should remain unless we gain WP:Consensus that it should be removed or reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"and it likely will" *smirk* Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do have a lot of experience in how these types of WP:RfCs go. Anyone else who does wouldn't smirk in such an "I will get my way" manner. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's ludicrous. The previous wording should not remain if we can't agree on how to deal with red links in navboxes. You noted the following ... The edit warring preceded the RfC. The circumstances have changed. P.S. Per WP:INTERSPERSE, please do not leave a gap between threaded comments; it makes things difficult for the visually impaired. Alakzi (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You also stated, "Per WP:STATUSQUO, Rob was correct in reinstating the previous wording. He was incorrect in edit warring, as they all were." Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's ludicrous, then so are your words. "The circumstances have changed" only for those who think they have won the dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
They have; it has become apparent that there exists no consensus for the previous wording. Alakzi (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
We will see what the closer has to state on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

ToonLucas22, in my opinion, this is ass backwards and is exactly why I requested full-protection. Then again, I understand how either side feels that they have to get the "right version" back on the page in case the page is full-protected again. Your oppose vote sounds like a support vote. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I count 30 Support!votes (28 support, 2 strong support) and 13 Oppose (9 oppose and 4 strong oppose). While the opponents have strong feelings and have expressed those feelings and their rationale strongly, they are in the minority. The supporters have articulated reasons as well, from multiple perspective. I call that a consensus. I may have missed someone's !vote, but I think it's time to close, put in the other version, and move on. Montanabw(talk) 04:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE aside, that would be for an uninvolved administrator to determine. You've made your support of this proposal very clear above, and if you have consensus as you say, let an administrator determine that. Otherwise editors will drag it out into "well it wasn't closed properly" nonsense; let it be done by the book as this is a guideline page and not just an article to avoid any chance of that happening. - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict; Aoidh beat me to commenting, and I added on to what I was going to state... ]: And like I stated above, WP:Consensus is not a headcount; the policy is quite clear on that. SMcCandlish, who helped shape the WP:Consensus policy and weighed in above, can probably go over that aspect better than I can. I've seen various such WP:RfCs and WP:AfDs and the majority vote, even when the majority vote is significant, does not always prevail. Furthermore, some of the support voters and all of the oppose voters don't even like the proposed wording; so I see no WP:Consensus at all for the proposed wording, even if we state that there is WP:Consensus to be more lenient with the WP:Red link guideline with regard to navboxes. Anyway, I want an unbiased, good closer on this case. And given how people usually defer to administrators as having more authority on closes, maybe I JethroBT, who closed the "Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?" WP:RfC, after carefully reading and weighing the comments, would be interested in closing this matter? As for a non-administrative close, maybe Armbrust, who regularly closes WP:RfCs and other "vote" discussions, would be interested in closing this one? Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't see what the rush is. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The is no rush—it'll close when it closes. What is clear so far is that a supermajority is opposed to the prohibition against redlinks in navboxes—including a number of the oppose votes—and that evidence that consensus for the status quo ever existed has not been demonstrated. Even a close against the particular wording cannot be interpreted as a consensus for the status quo, as the consensus is clearly not there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The evidence you're asking for is found in the Wikipedia policy for what a consensus is, I'm a little confused on why you're asking for something that is inherently obvious. If there could be said to be a "supermajority" in any discussion, this one isn't it. Those who support the proposal can't even agree on what they are supporting, and those who want red links can't even agree on what type and where. That's not a supermajority, if it even is a majority, it is by the skin of its teeth and largely because you're trying to call this a "prohibition". Red links are already permitted in nav boxes, but they must be included for a reason. What you're describing as the status quo, and what the guideline actually says, are very different things. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What is clear as clear gets is that the vast majority do not support the status quo (by any definiton of the term), and for a very broad variety of reasons. For example, those who have supported here at the very least clearly and unambiguously support Dr. Blofeld's particular use of redlinks in navboxes, which by the current wording of the guideline is not only prohibited, but actively (and disruptively) hunted down. I repeat: "Even a close against the particular wording cannot be interpreted as a consensus for the status quo, as the consensus is clearly not there."—the consensus is that the guideline must change. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What you're saying is that the current wording opposes any red links, when it does not. Therefore your reading of the comments is apparently based off of the assumption that supporting Dr Blofeld's proposal in any form is to oppose the current wording, which is not the case. I think the only thing that is "clear" is that you and I fundamentally disagree on this subject and will not change one another's opinion on this, which is fine. I'm not suggesting that the status quo is some perfect version that needs no change, but what I am saying is that unless an editor's comment specifically says otherwise, to support a change in wording is not necessarily to be against the current wording, especially when the current wording is not diametrically opposed to the proposed change. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What you're saying is that the current wording opposes any red links: You'd wish I were saying that—keep valiantly slaying them strawmen. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"which by the current wording of the guideline is not only prohibited..." If you're going to be uncivil, at least be right. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
So what you're saying is those who go around removing Dr. Blofeld's redlinks are in the wrong? Those who have opposed so far have made it clear they want those redlinks gone, and that the current wording of the guideline must be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit them. You appear to be part of the consensus against that interpretation, in which case something must be done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is it, are you or are you not saying that the current wording opposes any red links? Why accuse me of "valiantly slaying them strawmen" if what I said you were saying about the prohibition against redlinks in navboxes is exactly what you were saying? - Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Quit dodging. You've been given more than enough context for what "prohibition" means here, and I don't believe for a second you actually believe I claimed that no redlinks were ever allowed—so put away the strawman and answer the question. Flyer22, Rob Sinden, et al. are firm in their support of the interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed—are you with them or not? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There you go crying "strawman" again, and again when that word couldn't possibly apply. Ironically, however, the strawman you added is "no redlinks were ever allowed"; I never claimed you said that. There is no prohibition against redlinks outside of what is found within this guideline, which isn't much even in the context you're referring to, which brings me back full circle to what I originally said: the proposal is not diametrically opposed to the current wording, so to claim that a vague support for the proposal shows "the vast majority do not support the status quo (by any definiton of the term)" is a spurious claim, at best, since it shows no such thing.
As to the marginally-related question you're claiming I'm "dodging" because I wanted clarification on a question you ironically refused to answer (and still haven't) before I answered you, I see a few problems with your question. First, this "are you with them or not" is a very WP:BATTLEGROUND approach; I am neither with them or not. This does not suggest that redlinks are not permitted. Rob Sinden's oppose comment, for example, doesn't seem to suggest that redlinks "must not be allowed" the way you're inferring either, so his comment in the diff I linked, as written, yes I agree with it. I don't see any "interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed" there, however, so if there was further elaboration in another diff then I can't speak on that because I haven't seen it. Red links in nav boxes should be the exception, not the norm, and they should be included with reason. "Red links generally are not included...in navigational boxes" does not mean "Red links are not included...in navigational boxes". - Aoidh (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
the strawman you added is "no redlinks were ever allowed": Your exact words: "are you or are you not saying that the current wording opposes any red links?" Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I truly have no idea how you managed to get that first quote out of "my exact words", because those are two completely different sentences. - Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I wanted clarification on a question you ironically refused to answer: I answered it. You're pretending I didn't.
I don't see any "interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed" : so this whole discussion is just a figment of everyone's imagination! Dr. Blofeld, could you kindly withdraw this RfC? You're obviously only here to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
So which is it then, and where did you answer that? Does the current wording prohibit the red links or not? That's what I asked and from what I can see, you haven't answered that. If you have to cherry-pick my words and remove the context from them to make a point, then it's not much of a point to make. What I said was that I don't see any "interpretation of the guideline that Dr Blofeld's redlinks must not be allowed" in this comment. What I see is a comment saying that the editor has concerns with the current proposal, not that the current wording prohibits them outright. This "us against them" and "if you support the proposal the oppose the current wording and vice versa" is a glaringly false dichotomy, which goes to the point I originally made, that the comment, "Even a close against the particular wording cannot be interpreted as a consensus for the status quo", is inaccurate per that very reason. - Aoidh (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you've made it clear you're only here to derail the discussion. I'll leave it to the closer to puzzle their way through your non sequiturs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Instead of addressing the substance of my comment, you yet again comment on me personally instead. That's rather telling as to the merits of your argument, especially when you refuse to answer a very simple question about your comments that would provide some much needed clarification as to your opinion on the status quo (which is far from "derailing" given that your entire original comment was about the status quo). - Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm genuinely asking, because if this is the answer you're referring to, it was worded very vaguely. However, if by that comment you mean that no, the current status quo does not oppose the use of any redlinks then your original comment in the discussion doesn't really apply since most of the "support" comments in the discussion above make no mention of the current wording, only the proposed wording. Therefore a close against the proposal has nothing to do with the current wording as the current wording is only a gradual step away from the proposal, it's not in opposition to it. If, however, you believe the current wording forbids any use of red links, that is a different matter entirely, which you should probably make clear if that's the case, as the closer would then have to read your original comment here in that context, where it would make more sense. If you do reply, I suspect it will be to accuse me of yet some other nonsense instead of clarifying what you meant, but hopefully you'll prove me wrong in that regard. - Aoidh (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no substance to your comment—you're desperately trying to paint my "prohibition" comments as having claimed "the current wording forbids any use of red links", which the context makes abundantly clear was never the intention. You're hoping to fill this page with gibberish to obscure that context so you can discredit your recontextualized strawman version of my comments, just as with your first response to me where you simply pretended the word "specifically" wasn't there, even after having quoted it. The context is the removal of Dr. Blofeld's redlinks in light of the current wording of the guideline—if you insist on recontextualizing the argument, then you can only be arguing in bad faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Now it's bad faith you're accusing me of. This wheel of vapid accusations is tiresome, and my mistake was giving you fodder to water down this discussion with your patently nonsenical accusations. You are welcome to put your money where your mouth is and report me to WP:ANI for my bad faith, or any other venue of your choice if you feel another would be more appropriate. I have no doubt you will not, however, because you know just as well as I do that your characterization of me rings hollow, and the lack of an WP:ANI report about me is proof of that. I have made my point about your view of the current wording. That was my point, full stop. You have made it abundantly clear that you are more interested in arguing than discussing, in accusations than clarifications. That's fine, and you're welcome to the last word, because we have both made our points, such as they are. - Aoidh (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong version

Sarcasm is unnecessary. Izno (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The page is in the wrong version. Someone please revert to the correct revision before readdition of text by Robsinden. --TL22 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: per the directions on that page, don't forget to assume malice! VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

...but sometimes it's a nice humor break. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. Flyer22 pinged me here suggesting that I might be able to help close and evaluate consensus for this extensive discussion once folks have had a chance to weigh in. I'd be willing to do that, though if there are serious objections, I'd be happy to step away. The discussion seems pretty active at this time, so I'm not planning on closing until things have settled down. A 30-day period might be in order here. I also want to note that there's about 30,000+ words of reading as of this posting, and while it's not our longest RfC by any means, it will take a considerable amount of time for me to do a thorough assessment. I also want to encourage everyone to avoid arguing about what they think consensus is, resist making accusations about other editors (e.g. "did you read what I wrote" does not promote consensus-building and effectively shuts down discussion), and instead focus on articulating/rebutting arguments about the proposals based on relevant policies and guidelines. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I JethroBT. As you can see, there are currently two WP:RfCs above. Francis Schonken, as seen in the #Protected section above (my "4:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)" post), I WP:Pinged two editors about closing this discussion. And I WP:Pinged them because I know they are good at closing, and I trust them more than listing this case at WP:ANRFC where a supposedly uninvolved WP:Administrator (or non-WP:Administrator) will take on the case. I did not WP:Ping them because I think they will take "my side." I've been clear that I feel that the WP:Consensus is not clear-cut; so WP:Pinging them was not a "my side" thing at all. It was not a WP:Canvassing violation, and I support it. Before I WP:Pinged them, I was going to ask one and/or the other on their talk pages to close this matter. That was going to be days later. But since there was a clear rush to close the first WP:RfC, I went ahead and WP:Pinged them. If others want to not support I JethroBT on closing this case, for whatever reason, then that is obviously their right, but they will be turning away an excellent closer; just look at his statement above in this section, for example. All closers were not made equal. Flyer22 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Summarizing:
  • your side is at one of the extremes (I'm more a middle man, and BTW an excellent closer too)
  • there's a closer you trust
  • you suggest we trust this closer more than a supposedly uninvolved closer.
No offense, but I don't think you are defending your case very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You aren't defending your opposition very well. Closers that I trust make them inappropriate for closing this discussion? Um, no. For example, a closer seeing your post for this case at WP:ANRFC might also be one that I trust. Does that automatically make that editor an inappropriate closer? Um, no. My distrust of WP:ANRFC in this case has to do with the fact that I'm certain that inappropriate WP:Canvassing has gone on with the initial WP:RfC, that various editors have been discussing this case via email, and that I know that it is easy for an editor to contact another editor via email to close this case in the way that the editor wants it closed. That is experience with this site talking. I openly contacted two experienced closers that the Wikipedia community trusts. To state that they are biased because of that is a beyond poor argument. Unless you can show a better reason that "Oh, we shouldn't trust I JethroBT because Flyer22 WP:Pinged him to this matter.", then I suggest you drop the biased claims. I've already been clear with my "09:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)" post above that I am not going to press for I JethroBT to close this matter. I also am not going to sit here and continue debate closing with you. I know poor closers when I see them; I also know of the WP:Backlog at WP:ANRFC. I contacted two good closers; people are free to take that or leave it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, to assume or imply that these two editors have some friendship or tight friendship with me, are at my bidding, or consistently closed discussions in my favor is assuming and implying too much. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Throwing in some mild conspiracy theories regarding WP:ANRFC doesn't really help.
Re. "to assume or imply that ..." – I assumed or implied none of these things.
Re. "to state that they ..." – didn't state, assume or imply any of that.
Re. "people are free to take that or leave it" – but you seem unable to cope with people leaving it.
I'm not defending my opposition (I gave a rationale without feeling the need to add anything to it), so couldn't care less whether I defend my opposition very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No mind conspiracy theories; rather fact (and I am not obliged to share any of that information here at Wikipedia). And regarding your claims that you were not assuming anything, such assumptions are the only possible reasons to state that I JethroBT shouldn't be closing these WP:RfCs. And they make much more sense than your "we can't have him close because you trust him" reason. Stating that I seem "unable to cope with people leaving it" because I defended myself and I JethroBT against your baseless opposition is as spurious as your other comments in this section. Same goes for your claim that you are not "defending [your] opposition." And that you couldn't care less if you defended your opposition very well is not surprising, since you never defend your proposals to change policies, guidelines or essays very well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't judge my intentions, you're way off. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You've just made claims of canvassing and e-mail discussions, and are doubly asserting now that they are "fact". Those are serious allegations. Evidence please. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Settle down folks. This constant judgment of motives is exactly what we need less of here. We all want to get this discussion resolved fairly, so let's focus on that. Francis Schonken, I understand your preference toward letting this sit at ANRFC. That is, after all, the normal thing to do. But it's not so different for an editor to neutrally ask an uninvolved administrator to review and close the discussion, even if the editor has offered this or that opinion. As SMcCandlish brings up below, ANRFC can take months given its backlog and the few people helping out there. Direct requests to someone uninvolved is simply a way to help move things along. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with Jethro handling this, absent any evidence of INVOLVEDment. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Thanks for not taking this personal (which I never intended).
Here's a suggestion: could you find some time to help out at WP:ANRFC? It's not as if the above are the most urgent RfC's to close. I suggested ANRFC so that the parties in the discussion here can worry less about when and who will close, so that discussion can be more on content as you suggested. Apart from that any moderation on the current discussions here is welcome of course! --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, I think it's very clear that there is consensus to change the guidelines here. Somebody please close this and make the changes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree about chaos. Let's close and move on. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_4&oldid=1137434210"