WikiQueer:Red link


 * WQ:RED redirects here. For redirects, see WikiQueer:Redirect. For the Reference desk, see WikiQueer:Reference desk.

A red link, like this one, signifies a link to a page that does not exist in WikiQueer. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link 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. However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right, and thus lacks notability). Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles—but one may link to the title of a deleted article if one intends to write an article about an entirely different topic that has the same title.

Good red links help WikiQueer—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that WikiQueer is far from finished.

Creating red links
A red link appears whenever double brackets  are placed around a word or phrase for which WikiQueer does not have an article.

When to create red links
Please only make links that are relevant to the context, but please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles.

Keep in mind that there are various notability guidelines (see WQ:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subject types, including people (WQ:BIO), web content (WQ:WEB), organizations and companies (WQ:CORP) and more. Note that a red link to a non-notable person can end up being a link to a different person of the same name.

Avoiding creation of certain types of red links
Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created, including articles that do not comply with WikiQueer's naming conventions. The illustrative red link positioned at the beginning of this page is an example of this type of normally unwanted red link.

Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as or, 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, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.

An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this results in, red-linking has led to notable, but not very prominent persons being incorrectly identified on WikiQueer as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or persons involved in or associated with other forms of conduct they might consider disreputable. This is especially concerning when dealing with living people.

When creating an article, it is best practice to: (a) check whether there are existing red links that will be turned blue by the creation of the article; and (b) check whether those incoming links are pointing to the right place and to correct them where needed.

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 be created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information. An example of a plausible red link might be to driving in Germany, 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 Germany", 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 WikiQueer for creation of a new article with at least a 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 Germany should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets, simply in order 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 WikiQueerian 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 WikiQueer yet. 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 WikiQueerian 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 WikiQueer. 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 WikiQueer:Manual of Style/Linking.
 * The red link may be a typo—e.g., someone wanted to link to African elephant, but instead typed . 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 red link may be an intentional misspelling and should be treated as any other type of vandalism.
 * The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of WikiQueer. If such an article meets the English-language WikiQueer criteria, then list it on Pages needing translation into English; if not, use a link to the article in the foreign-language version of WikiQueer instead of a red link. Such links can be made by:
 * Explicitly including the language tag in front of the article name; for example, the article Highway route markers has a short section on Dutch highway route markers with a reference to the Dutch-language article nl:Hectometerpaal.
 * Using the template.
 * Links in any of the various and  hatnotes, in, , , and  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, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.