Gpedia:Red link

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 Gpedia grow.[1] The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2] Good red links help Gpedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Gpedia is far from finished.

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 be made to every chapter in a book. 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 Gpedia'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.

In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Gpedia should not have an article 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).

Creating red links

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

When to create red links

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 probably qualifies because it is probably "notable" and probably should have that obvious title.

Before adding a red link, make sure that its subject does not already exist under a different page name. The topic may well be covered in a section of another article; it could even be buried in several paragraphs nearby. So it is the responsibility of the person who creates a red link to scan for the topic's coverage. The category links at the bottom of that page will link to virtually all related articles, and the search engine provides features for advanced queries that can pinpoint matching text anywhere on Gpedia. Both search methods employ MediaWiki features crafted to find information on Gpedia. They can help us build Gpedia, red link by red link.

Take care when creating a red link that it has a valid title and that its subject meets notability guidelines for topics (including those for people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), etc.).

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.

Avoiding creation of certain types of red links

Do not create red links to:

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

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

Biographical articles

As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Gpedia's guidelines for notability. All the rules that apply to our biographies on living people equally apply to red-linked names.

Checking incoming links is particularly important when creating new biography articles. There have been cases in which a biographical article was created for a person with the same name as an existing red link, but the article was for a different person. 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 who co-founded SpaceX, 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.

Disambiguation pages

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.

Dealing with existing red links

In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name.

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 driving in Madagascar, since an article on driving in the United States exists, and country-specific driving articles like these are a likely area for future creation. However, it is better to leave this link red than to create a "placeholder stub" that says only "There is driving in Madagascar", 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 Gpedia 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 driving in Madagascar should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply to temporarily reduce the amount of red text in an article.

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 Gpedia 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 Gpedia. 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 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 Gpedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked.
  • The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to African elephant, but instead typed "African eelephant". In this case, try to figure out the intended article and fix the link. If it looks like a common misspelling, such as Scandanavia, you may want to create a redirect from that misspelling to the correct one, but you should still correct the misspelling even though it would no longer appear red.
  • The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Gpedia. If such an article meets the English-language Gpedia criteria and you are able to translate, then follow the procedures at Gpedia:Translation; if not, use a link to the article in the other edition of Gpedia instead of or next to a red link. Such links can be made manually or by using the interlanguage link template {{ill}}.
  • Links in any of the various {{About}} and {{Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{Main}}, {{Details}}, {{Further}}, and {{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 Gpedia.

See also

Lists of redlinks


  1. ^ a b Diomidis Spinellis and Panagiotis Louridas (August 2008). "The collaborative organization of knowledge". Communications of the ACM. Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 68–73. doi:10.1145/1378704.1378720. Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system. See also Gpedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Gpedia growth.
  2. ^ Gpedia:Gpedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>