Wikipedia talk:Red link: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 289:

*'''Conditional oppose''' - I oppose unless each red link is monitored by software which automatically logs the creation date and removes the link if it is still red after a suitable period. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

*:Bizarre. How long is a "suitable period"? Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTFINISHED|a work in perpetual progress]], remember? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:38, 18 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 go 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 keepskeep 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 don't want to write the full article themselves, they should be encouraged to create a stub rather than just red linking it. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

*'''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. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk: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... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 03:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)