Wikipedia talk:Write the article first

Disagree

If the world was my playground and I ruled it, I would see to it that you could not create any article without any article namespace redlinks leading to it. I don't think that would make an existing problem (the adding of unencyclopedic links to existing articles) worse, but it would definitely help resolve two other important problems: the creating of most speedyable articles (some recently deleted articles for example: Curtly morris, Samir faruki, Whiteheads RFC), and the creation of walled gardens. Plrk (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This guideline, as it reads at this moment anyway, only prohibits redlinks in "list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates," not other articles. I'm not certain, but it seems to me the process championed here would be something like

1. Redlink the article in related regular articles
2. Write the article (probably more or less simultaneously with the above)
3. Leave it a while, for editorial back-and-forth (which no doubt will include notability discussions, among others)
4. If it survives (as, no doubt, edited and expanded), then it's fair to add it to "lists pages, disambiguation pages, or templates."

Am I on the right track, here? Jackrepenning (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree too, while it would be nice to have everything n the entrie world listed as articles, it often isn't the case. What this PoV suggests is to restrict lists to only those wikipedia recognises - which I think is the wrong approach. It means that lists of useful information becomes censored. Sure, an author should write a small article about the item in question, but practically that doesn;t happen - and the whole approach of wikipedia is that someone *will* do it.

So, crippling information because you see some redline links is not a good enough reason to follow this advice. Gbjbaanb (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to add my voice to those disagreeing with this essay. Red-links are incredibly useful. The fact they are a different colour makes it clear to the reader that there is something different about them. For editors they're a very useful way of finding articles that need to be created. But crucially, they bridge the gap between reader and editor. It was clicking on red links and seeing "Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this, perhaps you'd like to create it" that drew me in to helping with the project. The same is true for many established and longstanding editors. With the numbers active editors and administrators on the decline, recruitment tools like this are precisely what we need to encourage. WaggersTALK 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WTAF² : Qualifying when this is appropriate

A list of counterexamples would be helpful. There are definitely useful lists that have been made less useful by the overzealous use of this principle. The programming languages example above is one (some software lists w/ commercial entries may be prone to spam by startups; lists about languages themselves, which in compilation are often interesting in the long tail as examples of new ideas or directions, much less so). Another is tables that offer extensive context, where inclusion in the table comes with a statistical summary of impact and relevance.

In all of these cases, removal from a list because the entry obviously fails notability and would be speedied on those grounds, seems reasonable -- removal because noone has successfully created an article that survived merging and deletion over time, even if it is specifically relevant in the context of the list is a much stronger and more volatile filter, and seems unhelpful to me.

As noted above, new page creation has become much more onerous, and stub deletion more common, since this essay was first drafted. So not only does one have to WTAF, any temporary deletion of an article (for needing improvement, lacking sufficient sources, or merging with other articles) can lead to a cascade of deletion of references to it in every associated list. Which is a detriment, not a complement, to human knowledge. – SJ + 21:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sj Most of the templates inside Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country templates not only have structured red links, but also Help:Interlanguage links ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would love clarity on whether including redirects (to sections of another article) qualify or not. I know that previews aren't as nice with redirects, but sometimes a section redirect is better than nothing. For example Foxconn union inside Template:Foxconn ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a great example; redirects should definitely count. (Often a good and notable concept is redirected to a section for compactness; one certainly shouldn't have to break out a tiny and less-readable stub just to include the section in appropriate lists or tables. – SJ + 22:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging because this is 2nd time WP:WTAF has been invoked for Help:Interlanguage links. Pinging User:Jax 0677. I would propose adding Help:Interlanguage links as an example of a non pure red-link, because it provides info to existing articles, albeit not in English Wikipedia. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)