Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates

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. --
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 {{
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. --
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
talk
) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
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)

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. --
    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. --
    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?
    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. --
    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.
    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? --
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.
    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? --
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link/Archive_4&oldid=1137434210"