Wikipedia talk:Intentionally permanent red link

It seems that every so often, someone tries to create an article at red link or the weather in London, or make them redirects (e.g. to Wikipedia:Red link or Climate of London). These get deleted because the two phrases are used as examples of red links. Others dispute this because they think people who enter the search terms or follow mistakenly-created links need to be redirected. This has been called one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. (Protecting the pages from recreation would involve turning the links blue.)

I suggest that these problems could be solved if people chose red link phrases that didn't look like potential article subjects, i.e. were non-noun phrases of no particular importance. I have made a start by AWBing all the references to "red link(s)" into "red link(s) (like this one)," except on five pages (four of them talk) referencing this specific edit war. I doubt anyone will attempt to write an article about "like this one," as they would about red links or the weather in London.

If we can convince people to follow this new precedent, then Red link can become a redirect to Wikipedia:Red link in case anyone goes looking for it. The redirect can be protected against further warring — including outright vandalism — and we'll still have permanent examples of red links where we need them. With a similar search-and-replace, we can do the same thing with the weather in London.

Folks, are we interested in fighting this edit war, or in ending it? _SeahenNeonMerlin 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, redirecting redlink to Wikipedia:redlink would be a cross-namespace redirect, which would likely end up getting deleted at WP:RFD. It seems we have an endless cycle, here :) Cowman109^Talk 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't prevent cross-namespace redirects from places like Cotw, Pokemon test, or Random Page. The only case when a common Wikipedia term isn't a redirect out of article space seems to be when a disambiguation page is needed. And even if you were right, that still wouldn't prevent our dealing with the weather in London, which is the far more active edit war.[1][2] _SeahenNeonMerlin 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for bringing those up. I will list those three at WP:RFD. :D Cowman109^Talk 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way; very hot. Will (message me!) 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, which is worse: an unpopular redirect or a perpetual edit war? Either way, your comments only apply to red link, so I'll go make the weather in London a redirect and put it up on WP:RFP. Those attempting to use it as a red link example will just have to see that it's blue and try something else. _SeahenNeonMerlin 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I agree with you about the weather in london. It makes more sense as a redirect, and I cannot find any reference in what links there to redlinks anymore, so your idea of changing how we show an example of a redlink certainly does make the most sense. Perhaps it was once used as an example, but if you changed it, then it would be a much more helpful article if it redirects to the climate of London. Cowman109^Talk 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(the above text was moved here from WP:VPR#End the edit war once and for all: Stop using noun phrases for red link examples by _SeahenNeonMerlin 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Indeed, that seems it would be the case. However, I don't think that all users will ever be knowledgable on every matter or all understand this; there doesn't seem to be an actual way to end all of the problems surrounding the controversy. Michael 06:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors who attempt to use it will see that the weather in London is now a blue link. If they follow it, wondering why, and go back on the redirect, they'll see a notice and a link here, where we explain why the weather in London would not be a good choice for a red link anymore. _SeahenNeonMerlin 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary proposal designed to end a problem which does not exist. Not only does every internal link to The weather in London deal with red links; so too do external links including those from other Wikimedia projects. Ending its status as a redlink will disrupt examples and guidance. Deliberate vandals who create a page there are quickly dealt with. Well-meaning editors who try to find a solution to the non-problem are also covered. --Henrygb 09:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if it's linked to from other Wikimedia projects, it isn't a red link, it's a purple link. (All interwiki links appear and behave the same, regardless of whether the target page exists.) The only exception is Meta:Help:Advanced editing, which we copy to Help:Wiki markup examples, but I've removed the weather in London from that as well. If other wikis want to create red links, they should do so internally, because an interwiki red link does not exist.

Second, I've eliminated the examples and guidance that these pages would disrupt. The only remaining links to this page are those discussing this specific edit war and my efforts to end it. Thus, keeping this page disrupts nothing.

Third, the problem does exist: it's a full-scale edit war. Just look at the activity log for the weather in London. _SeahenNeonMerlin 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, the only reason it's an edit war is because you are insisting on having your way in it. I can't see any discussion from which it is possible to say what the consensus is. In my view, The weather in London is a very good example of an article inappropriate for Wikipedia. Weather is not the same as climate, for one thing. The weather can change in a matter of minutes. It is precisely because people might get the two concepts confused that it helps to remind people of proper encyclopaedic tone. Even if it was to be decided that The weather in London should no longer be an example of a red link, I would put the present article on redirects for deletion. David | Talk 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that it's not an appropriate redirect. Still, I fear that if the page remains empty and unprotected, people will still use it and create it, and the edit war will continue. However, I have another idea. Now that the page no longer needs to be a red link, it can be protected-deleted with the template. Will that work? NeonMerlin 15:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As David said, you are causing the edit war and acting contrary to policy and existing consensus before building a new one. Why make so many changes without getting it properly considered first? --Henrygb 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that not enough people can be bothered to speak up yet. However, bear in mind that nobody appears to have raised any objections to, let alone reverted, the edits that brought these red link examples into disuse in the first place. Instead of blaming me for a few admins' rash decision to speedy the weather in London and ask questions later, I'd appreciate it if everyone else could discuss the guideline proposal on its own merits so that consensus can be reached and it (or an alternative) can become official as soon as possible. As it is, this will probably take all summer; and in the meantime, I'm afraid we'll just have to be bold. NeonMerlin 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about I've fallen and I can't get up? Oh, rats. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline calls for "non-noun phrases of no particular significance." I'm pretty sure being a well-known ad slogan qualifies as "particular significance;" but if it helps, I'll go define what I mean by that. NeonMerlin 23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny. I guess I have to sharpen my wit a little more. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A little humour is a good idea when our edit-peacemaking and consensus-building is, at best, proceeding too slowly. But so is fleshing out the guideline page. Thus, I think you did help in that respect, since "no particular significance" wasn't a clear and precise phrase. NeonMerlin 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - my view is to oppose. The weather in London was fine as the standard red link, and was widely known as such. The few vandals (or wits) who wrote "Foggy" were dealt with quickly while being distracted from vandalism elsewhere. If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it through instruction creep. --Henrygb 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is not vandalism. We can't eliminate vandalism, and I'm not going to bother trying. My concern is editors acting in good faith who:

1. are novices and don't know that "the weather in London" is an unsuitable topic and an unconventional title,
2. honestly believe that novices who type "the weather in London" into the search box, or who link to it when actually referring to it, should be redirected to Climate of London or some other appropriate article, or
3. think the page should be marked as deleted to stop editors in categories 1 and 2, even if it means turning the links blue, because the weather in London is not a suitable article subject.

It appears that these editors are responsible for a good chunk of the activity. However, I also think that deprecating the weather in London and red link will deter vandalism on the IPRL targets that replace them, in several ways:

1. The guideline also calls for avoiding IPRLs altogether when not specifically discussing red links. I think this will decrease the number of IPRLs by more than half, if inactive discussion archives are excluded. This will greatly reduce the worst-case potential impact of vandalism, and thus the motivation.
2. Until I performed my AWB maneuvers, there were only two common IPRL targets. My AWB work replaced them with three (like this one, in and for a few miles around and do not create this page). There may soon be four or five. Combined with the above, this will mean that each target has no more than a handful of links, so creating a given page takes the same amount of effort and produces less effect. This should make the targets less attractive to vandals.
3. A title such as "The weather in London" invites comments. ("Foggy.") A phrase that meets my guidelines does not. Since some vandals' goal seems to be to write something they'll think is funny, they'll find themselves facing an impossible task and give up.

My AWB work started nine days ago, and a new IPRL target page has only had to be deleted twice in that time. And that's before the vandals have had a chance to test the waters and realize that these pages are being watched. Thus, I don't believe that this change will increase vandalism.

As for its being instruction creep, the more I do research and build on this guideline, the more I see that it's grounded in various existing policies and guidelines, so it's really a minor additional instruction to address a significant problem. Most users will probably be affected for their first few hundred edits, so they can be told about it when they first run afoul of it, with no hard feelings. It doesn't have to be part of the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. NeonMerlin 07:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Twice in nine days? The weather in London was vandalised once from 1 May to 18 July before you started your campaign. It was spotted in 7 minutes and deleted in 15 minutes. I accept that April was worse where it was created 6 times but each time it was deleted quickly. It is easy to watch. So leave it be. --Henrygb 23:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to leave it a bit longer. As I say, vandals don't yet all know that these new targets are being watched, and they may be testing the waters. And even if the rate of vandalism stays the same, which I very much doubt, there will be fewer total deletions needed, because we won't be dealing with the good faith editors as I mentioned. NeonMerlin 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

The description doesn't clearly explain what this is, and it isn't written in the tone of a policy. Is this for red links used in styleguide examples, etc.? —Centrx→talk • 03:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't look like a policy, that's because it isn't. It's a proposed guideline. Guidelines are a bit more flexible than policies, i.e. they are easier to amend and more likely to have exceptions. (If a policy and a guideline conflict, it's probably the policy that prevails.) They also tend to be less formal.

The proposal applies to style guide examples, help pages and discussion pages, any place there's a red link that's supposed to remain red permanently. NeonMerlin 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a guideline about this? And it isn't written like a guideline either. —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See above for why we need a guideline. As for the writing style, you're welcome to rewrite the policy if you want — I don't like having to write it all by myself, and some peer editing may be needed. I won't revert your changes unless they worsen the style or violate the spirit of my version. NeonMerlin 04:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility

Intentionally blank articles appear like this ({{red link}}). Where "red link" is a template which can be set to any article - perhaps one from the requested articles. At the moment, I've (probably temporarily) set it to display "red link" but link to an article entitled "Please do not create this article". If a valid article is specified, when it is created, the links can easily be changed. Warofdreams talk 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this idea in principle. This guideline proposal concerns link target, not displayed link text. My concerns are that:

• Novice editors, not accustomed to piped links, might think they're starting red link when really they're starting a different article.
• Someone, or a 24-hour bot, would have to monitor the template and retarget it when the requested target article was created. Even then, people would occasionally get it blue, since it would take a few seconds for the bot to respond and for the servers to register the change.
• Editors would probably fight over the target of this template, since it would bring a good deal of attention to only one requested article. (Having multiple versions of the template, each with a different target, would diminish this.)

NeonMerlin 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, for the first point, what if Template:Red link just contains an unpiped link? Point two is correct, but if a 24-hour bot was in place, it'd only very rarely be seen blue - probably less often than any other method of providing an intentionally permanent red link. Multiple versions of the template seems like unneeded duplication - what if the bot automatically took the first request from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext? As that template is protected it'd prevent fights over the target. Warofdreams talk 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Protect the pages

As we can't need too many of these types of permanent red links ("The Weather in London" and "red link" ought to be plenty, no?), and since there is overwhealming consensus that those pages should remain without articles or redirects, perhaps it would be simplest to just protect the pages. --jwanders^Talk 08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot protect a page which does not exist. And if you put Template:deleted up to protect it then it exists and is no longer a redlink. --Henrygb 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which I think would be a good idea; there are more suitable IPRL targets, and editors (even if they aren't aware of this guideline) will find alternatives once they attempt to use red link or the weather in London and see that the links are no longer red. NeonMerlin 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please

Red link and The weather in London were never home to major edit wars. Most of their page creations were simple vandalism. Honest misunderstandings were rare, and solved without leaving malice. From this page, it appears that consensus is that the current method is fine. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. It has likely used up more resources so far than red links have in Wikipedia history. Please, just let it end. This will be better on all of us. -- kenb215 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If this were little more than a vandalism issue, would it be listed on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? (Which, BTW, was the case before I ever spoke up about it.) We can't eliminate vandalism (which is why I don't do more counter-vandalism work), but I believe we can eliminate all good-faith edit wars given, among other things, the right policies and guidelines. This, I am convinced, is one of those. Besides, with our limited tracking, there's no telling how many less-experienced users have searched for "red link" when they really needed Wikipedia:Red link, or "the weather in London" when they needed Climate of London. NeonMerlin 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it could still be listed. Lamest edit wars isn't about the most harmful edit wars. It is about the ones over the most trivial arguments, such as the minor war over a page that doesn't even exist.

Maybe it's minor as far as wars go, but you're clearly admitting that it is a war. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the comments on this talk page, it seems as if there is only one person who truely supports this policy. I believe that more productive work could be accomplished if this proposal was let go. -- kenb215 01:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. Cowman109 clearly supports it. Warofdreams also seems to agree in principle, at least as far as saying new targets are needed. NeonMerlin 15:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read, Cowman109 supports redirecting the weather in London, but hasn't commented on the project as a whole. But my main point on the proposal is that the current approach towards using red links causes only minimal disruption; less so than a policy to guide their use would. -- kenb215 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What is inherently disruptive about creating a fairly simple guideline? NeonMerlin 16:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Any effects, positive or negative, that this proposal could have are minor. I believe that the negatives outweigh the positives. Some of those negatives are:

• added instruction creep that doesn't solve a major problem

  Which is worse? A relatively short and simple guideline, or an edit war that will never end? It may not be the worst edit war ever, but (as I explain above) it clearly is a real edit war. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• the Weather in London is a historic non-page, and is (a small) part of Wikipedia culture that way

  So now we're keeping things as they are just for the sake of keeping things as they are? That goes against Wikipedia's spirit of changeability! NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• consensus appears to be against it (1 support, 1 variant support, 5 6 opposed)

  If you count me, it's 2 clear support and 1 variant support. That means that only ⅔ of the votes so far are against it. And I don't think two-thirds qualifies as a consensus, especially when the turnout has only been nine votes. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• creates friction by going against the current method, and being started without a gathering of opinions

  That's why it's still up here: to gather more opinions. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• it uses resources (editor time) that could be better used elsewhere

  So does keeping the weather in London free of well-intentioned redirects. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• using more pages will make it harder keep all of them uncreated

  No it won't. It will mean a few more entries in watch lists, but as I've already explained, it will (a) decrease the motivation for vandalism and (b) prevent good-faith stubs or redirects by not appearing to create potential article subjects. NeonMerlin 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

-- kenb215 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for this guideline. —Centrx→talk • 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, after seeing this issue continue for some time, I'm beginning to think that this is too much work for something that is such a small problem. There would indeed be a _lot_ of work to implement this, as the weather in london link is actually in help pages too, meaning that it is simply too often used as an example to be undone - plus, discussions have led to the conclusion that climate and weather are not the same thing, and people say it thus does not warrant a redirect. I think that while this project has good intentions, it is simply not able to be carried out as the effort involved outweighs the benefit. Cowman109^Talk 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Foggy.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page.

Seriously, though, for what it's worth, I'd heartily support the weather in London in particular to not be a red link for purposes of exposition, as it's at best a time wasting, dubious example of something that shouldn't exist and a vandal magnet at worst. (We have redirects on much shakier grounds, and they are all useful, save for things like George Woshingtin.) I'm a bit incredulous at the waffling about "instruction creep" and "Wikipedia culture" (and those were probably the strongest arguments); I've rarely seen a more circumlocutory formulation of "I don't like change".

It's very true, though, that talking about this will never get us anywhere, and editing will just become a huge and pointless flamefest (thus also not getting us anywhere, unless someone gets tired and gives up). So I'd say this ship has sailed, and the weather in London is likely to remain foggy for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, though, I don't see why taking some care and not gratuitously creating red links that cry out for editing isn't good advice. JRM · Talk 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. On instruction creep, I am, in general, opposed to a new policy or guideline that does not noticeably improve either Wikipedia as a whole, or a significant subset of it. Wikipedia already has hundreds of policies and guidelines (Wikipedia:List of policies, Category:Wikipedia guidelines). It is impossible for anybody to be able to know what all of them are, let alone try and follow them. More guidelines will add to the confusion.

The Weather in London is a minor part of Wikipedia culture. If it needed to be changed, that wouldn’t be a major loss. However, it appears to me that it is best as it is.

JRM, I am curious as to why would those two arguments be the strongest? In my opinion, those were the two weakest. The apparent consensus, so far, would likely be the strongest argument.-- kenb215 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I also have a question on how this proposal was done. The links below show that the guideline was implemented before it was even proposed to the community. Why was that?

• 2006-07-12 16:54:06 – Red link changing begun [3] (Talk:Red link at the time [4])
• 2006-07-19 06:02:05 – Village pump proposal [5]
• 2006-07-20 04:29:13 – Proposed policy created [6]
• 2006-07-20 15:01:24 – Community "support" announced [7] (then refuted [8])

-- kenb215 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: as far as instruction creep goes, history demonstrates that the most productive way of getting minor things done on Wikipedia is just doing them, and weathering the storm. Point in case: renaming Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. This was done by a fairly small group of people who didn't await community consensus, but simply went ahead. (No, I wasn't one of them, just in case. :-) The fallout was considerable (lots of people objecting on lots of grounds) but in the end, it stuck, because even the biggest gripers could admit that technically, it was a better name, and it allowed for the deletion pages to be separated. Whether that's a good way to do business in a community that prides itself on consensus is a matter of argument, but it remains that this sort of "color of the bikeshed" problem is never decided by discussion, but by someone doing something, for better or worse. (Admittedly, usually worse.)

Now, the weather in London is pretty much hopeless. Talking will never achieve anything here, because the arguments for and against are simply not strong enough on either side to change anything, or reach a consensus that actually means something. How much is "Wikipedia culture" worth? How much is a proper redirect worth? There are no rational answers. "It appears to me that it is best as it is"—with such judgements at the foundation, nothing short of a Vote® will decide matters, and even a vote will be endlessly disputed by people who don't like the outcome regardless, and who'll claim that not everyone was consulted, etcetera etcetera ad nauseam.

Honestly, hammering on procedure here looks even sillier than one well-meaning (but possibly misguided) individual putting up a guideline. He could have put it up as a personal subpage to avoid any accusation of instruction creep, but how much discussion would that have gotten? JRM · Talk 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I do believe that editors do sometimes need to be BOLD. What I was trying to show in the list above, though, was that consensus was claimed for the change, even though there was none. That appeared to me as if it was a lie. Any comments, anyone? -- kenb215 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for a list of people who support this, like a straw poll? Salad Days 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. The weather in London violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Salad Days 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

I support this proposal and redirecting the weather in London. In fact, I consider not to redirect it for the sake of redlink examples as unnecessary self reference. It's not right that people, e.g. children, who don't know the difference between weather and climate (that can mean the same thing in colloquial usage) get rejected when innocently searching for information. Wikipedia is always more important than some trivial part of the Wikipedia culture! I can't believe that unwritten esoteric tradition should override sane clearly explained guidelines.

Disclaimer: I support instruction creep, as long as the core policies are kept simple. No one is expected to write perfect articles. Disregarding formalities doesn't hurt anyone. Adding more guidelines is good, as long as they make sense. I don't know half of them, but if I ever need one, it's great to know they exist (and are always changeable.) Wipe 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that relatively few people would search for the weather in London. Most of the time, they would go to Weather in London, which is a redirect to Climate of London. Articles, and redirects, are rarely created starting with the word "the", unless it is commonly used that way (eg. The world). -- kenb215 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and another example is the weather. It's enough that some people find the redirect useful. And besides, any page name is free game, unless there is a policy against creating a specific article or redirect. Suppose someone starts a band called The weather in London (a typical "alternative" rock band name) and it becomes very successful. We'd be really stuck with the blue links in redlink examples. Propagating this example "of a page that shouldn't be created" is bad practice. Wipe 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

another example is the weather

the weather falls into the same category as The world, it is commonly used

some people find the redirect useful

except titles like the weather in London aren’t likely to be useful. If they were, then at least some other articles of the same nature would be redirects. But as this page shows, none of these exist.

a band called The weather in London

true, if a band, or anything, called the weather in London became popular then this would need to change to be about them. But that isn’t relevant yet.

-- kenb215 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very relevant when deciding what kind of examples to populate the Wikipedia (and other projects) with and what to say in the talk page of the said non-existing article(s).

Funny you should say that no other redirects of the same nature exist. I see many in that search, not pertaining to the weather though (have they been deleted?), but to other things, even trivial ones. You've convinced me that we shouldn't have to make the redirect, but you've also convinced me that someone may create it in good faith thinking that it's useful. It just isn't a worthy topic to wage revert wars over. Wipe 00:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very relevant when deciding

I tend to disagree. Potentially any phrase can be used as a name by today's "alternative" bands. The slim possibility of somebody, eventually, using a certain name generally isn't a consideration.

say that no other redirects of the same nature exist

By the same nature, I meant about weather. Sorry for the confusion. On the deletion possibility, I don't think so. I tried going to several different possibilities, and none had a talk page or deletion history, although older deletions wouldn't show up. For the other articles on the list, most of them are either when the actual article does start with "the" (ex. The Who), or when it is common use to have the word the in front of the title (ex. The whole truth).

someone may create it in good faith

True, but that could happen with many titles. I agree that it isn't the best title, but it is the one being used.

isn't a worthy topic to wage revert wars

I agree here. The entire topic is far too minor, as I have tried to say.

-- kenb215 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't the best practice, then the practice must be changed, hence this proposal. If the entire topic of this discussion is minor, there should be no reason to oppose this guideline that will make things easier. There are more robust ways to explain redlinks than selecting an arbitrary phrase that superficially looks like a normal article title and then threatening people not to create the article on its talk page. Wipe 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

If somebody wants a red link that bad, why not pipe it with an impossible article title, like:

• [[Some article that doesn't exist and hopefully never will or else i'll throw a giraffe at the elephant couch|red link]]. renders as: red link.
• red link

Any thoughts? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples of red links are usually demonstrated to new editors, some of whom might be confused by a link not going where it looks like it does. -- kenb215 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why not just link to asldfwone aoeih feoifn aowgfbero f and say, "this is an example of a red link"? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, you can use formatting to make a blue link look red Elephant, but it is clearly not a normal link :S. Maybe use punctuation like Red link.? (with a full stop). or file a feature request so that a deleted page can be protected. The pages thay link to will always be showing up blue sometimes, because a new editor goes "I know what a red link is, I'm gonna write about it". Cheers, Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Red link up for deletion

Template:Red link has been proposed for deletion. You're welcome to comment in the discussion. Uanfala (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)