Wikipedia:Red link

Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"WP:RED" redirects here. For redirects, see
WP:REDWARN
.

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

Spinellis and Louridas, "The Collaborative Organization of Knowledge"[1]

A red link, like this example, signifies that the linked-to page does not exist—it either never existed, or previously existed but has been deleted.

Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.[1] The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2] Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject. It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see

Notability – Whether to create standalone pages
). But please do not "kill" red links by redirect because their red color (annoying to some readers) seems to scream for a fix. It is easy to turn any red link blue by creating a redirect, but valid red links exist for a reason, and they are the "buds" from which new Wikipedia articles grow. A valid red link should be left in place if the reader agrees on need for a future article with that best name, but does not want to provide one.

Articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not notable in their own right. Red links should not routinely be made to every chapter in a book, or to all the people mentioned in an article. Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability. Red links may sometimes be created to articles deleted for some other reason. In addition, even if a page has been deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, you may make a red link to the term if you intend to write an article about an entirely different topic that happens to have the same title.

A red link appears whenever double square brackets [[ ]] are placed around a word or phrase for which Wikipedia does not have an article, disambiguation page or redirect.

Shortcut

Create red links whenever a non-existent article with more information would

help a reader understand
the content of the article in which the red link will appear. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition, to help support its role for its existing context. A technical term could qualify because it is probably "notable" and should have that obvious title.

Before adding a red link, make sure that its subject does not already exist under a different

provides features for advanced queries that can pinpoint matching text anywhere on Wikipedia. Both search methods employ MediaWiki
features crafted to find information on Wikipedia. They can help us build Wikipedia, red link by red link.

Take care when creating a red link that it has a

WP:CORP
), etc.).

Shortcuts

After creating an article, (a) use What links here to find any red links that your new article turned blue, (b) check whether those links refer to the topic of your new article, and (c) change any links that refer to a different topic.

Shortcuts

Do not create red links to:

Because they are useless as navigation aids, do not create red links in:

  • Templates such as {{
    Seealso
    }}    , which are intended to direct readers to existing articles.
  • WP:NOTSEEALSO
    ).
  • {{
    Otheruses
    }}     hatnotes.
  • Redirect pages.

Red links may be used in

navboxes
which also contain links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or the links may be removed from the template.

Red links are not to be shown on the Main Page.

To biographical articles

Shortcuts

As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet

our biographies on living people
equally apply to red-linked names.

Non-unique names

Redlinking a name which may not be unique bears the risk of the link eventually pointing to an article added later for a different person, company, or place with the same name. This is unlikely for, say, Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel, but very likely for football player Thomas Howard. Redlinking names of people who are not obviously notable also creates a link that may be unlikely to ever become blue. Adding detail to the link makes a misdirected link less likely (but not impossible); John Alexander Smith (physician) is better than John Smith. Simply redlinking names of people in an article, without detail, particularly if not obviously notable, should be avoided.

Checking incoming links is particularly important when creating new biography articles with article names that may not be unique. If some article has a redlink to that name but meaning a different person, the link will become blue but incorrect. This does happen in reality: for example, in 2012 a red link was placed in the article about the book Extra Virginity to link to a future article about the book's author, [[Tom Mueller]]. In 2014 an article was created for a different Tom Mueller, a rocket scientist, without checking for existing incoming links. The red link in the Extra Virginity article thus became blue, but the link was to the wrong person. The error was not corrected until 2016, by renaming the link, which remained red, to Tom Mueller (writer). It might have been preferable to unlink the name; the writer may not be Wikipedia-notable, and even [[Tom Mueller (writer)]] is not guaranteed unique; in this particular case there is at least one more writer of that name
, though without a Wikipedia article as of September 2024.

In disambiguation pages

Shortcut
Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Red links

Use of red links on disambiguation pages should be limited. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to help the reader arrive at the correct existing article from a choice of articles with similar titles. Since a red link is a link to a non-existent article, using red links in disambiguation pages is usually discouraged. Red links can be used in disambiguation pages if existing encyclopedic articles (i.e. not disambiguation pages, because disambiguation pages are not considered encyclopedic) have such red links.

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Creation of example red links as pages

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.

A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be "left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information." An example of a plausible red link might be to

stub
" that says only "Corruption rates in Wales are among the lowest in the world", with the sole purpose of turning the red link to blue. Editors should create stubs with a usable amount of content, or else not create the stub at all. Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for the creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism.

Likewise, a valid red link term like Corruption in Wales should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article. However, red links to articles that have since been deleted should usually be unlinked.

An existing red link can indicate one or more of the following things:

  • A new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. Do not remove these red links. This has several applications:
    • From within an article, such a link prepares the article to be fully supported (not orphaned upon creation). At any time, a Wikipedian may independently write an article on the linked-to subject, and when this happens, there's already a link ready and waiting for it. The red link also gives readers the opportunity to click on it to create the needed article on the spot.
    • The red link may identify a need to create a
      redirect
      to another article, but only if that article comprehensively deals with the topic.
    • Some WikiProjects have bots that determine how many times a certain red link appears in Wikipedia. This is used to determine what articles are the most needed. Editors can also, after clicking on a red link, use the "what links here" function (although the article does not exist) to determine how many times the subject has been red-linked.
  • The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.
  • The link may have been made by someone who wasn't aware of what should and shouldn't be linked to within articles. Always evaluate whether or not a red link is pointing at a title that actually needs creation. See WP:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked.
  • The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to
    redirect from that misspelling
    to the correct one, but you should still correct the misspelling even though it would no longer appear red.
  • Links in any of the various {{
    Seealso
    }}     notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed.
  • Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such red links should be removed only if it's certain the subject would not qualify for an article on Wikipedia.
  • The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. If such an article meets the English-language Wikipedia criteria and you are able to translate, then follow the procedures at
    ill
    }}. For example
  • {{ill|Richard J. Youle|de}} produces: Richard J. Youle [de] until the name is added to English Wikipedia (as of August 2024 there is a German, but no English article);
  • {{ill|Hanning Schröder|de}} links to the existing English page: Hanning Schröder.
  • If the English and foreign names are different:
    {{ill|Hooglede town hall|nl|Gemeentehuis van Hooglede}} produces: Hooglede town hall [nl]

See also

References

  1. ^
    doi:10.1145/1378704.1378720. Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system. See also WP:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth
    .
  2. ^ WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
  3. ^ For past examples listed here, see /History of the example red link.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Red_link&oldid=1238800888"