Wikipedia talk:Write the article first

Agree

I don't have any specific changes to submit right now, but I do want to say I agree with the concept. Especially on lists or articles that attract a high amount of linkspam when people try to use them for advertising--Crossmr (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts, it might be worth working towards consensus on the list policy and guidelines pages to have only blue linked entries or at least more guidance. WLU (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree to the fullest and would like to thank UnitedStatesian for the work he put into writing the essay. I think it will prove valuable i.e. when giving advice to new editors. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

As a result of this evoloution, these days, editors who add to lists often have no intention of writing the redlinked article, ever. This may be simply because writing the article is more time consuming than adding the link to the list or template. "Someone else will do it," the editor reasons. - I hate to say it, but this doesn't seem like such a wrong thing to do. At least a couple times, I've written articles simply to get rid of the glaring redlinks on lists.

One of Wiki's great flaws (IMO) is the equating of Verifiability with Notability, and the idea that anybody who is notable will inevitably have an article created about them. Well, given the number of policies and guidelines and the relatively strict restrictions of what constitutes an acceptable source, creating an article is not trivial. It's really a total pain, actually. For example, when I wrote the stub on Ron Lynch, it took at least a couple hours to find even the meager sources for information I already knew, and in spite of having his IMDB page listed as a source and a dozen other articles already linking to it before it was even created, it was still nominated for speedy delete three hours after its creation. That's not a friendly environment for article creation.

So let's flip that around. One of the articles that included a redlink to Ron Lynch was Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, where he was listed in the list of guests. If we follow this essay strictly, the choice for the person who (correctly) added Lynch's name to that list would have been: 1) Leave the name off the list since no article exists regardless of its accuracy or verifiability, 2) Add the name unlinked and hope another editor doesn't delete it thinking that it's spam or NN, or 3) Create some sourceless, barren stub article on Ron Lynch in order to make the link turn blue and pray it doesn't get deleted later.

I don't want to sound like I'm bagging on this too much, because the core idea is totally right. But I think it might be worth including some kind of caveat for when an editor is adding factual yet redlinked information to a list. Maybe there could be an alternate course of action, such as being sourcing the addition of the name if no article exists yet, or explaining the reason for the addition on the article Talk page. Torc2 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Great points, thanks. I'll write up some additional text and put in on in the next couple of days.UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this essay should only apply to completely open-ended lists. Dr. Katz only had so many guests on his show, so the list can actually be completed. Things like a list of lawn care companies can never make a complete list and are a major target for spam. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty of inherently-closed lists which are well-defined in scope (list of provinces in one country, list of stations on one specific rail or metro line, list of standard chess pieces) where leaving an item out is worse than leaving a WP:REDLINK. K7L (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

Proposal to limit the creation of new articles

I've written down some thoughts about a proposal to limit the creation of new articles, while allowing anonymous users to create articles (which is not the case now). Your thoughts and comments will be highly valued, see User:Plrk/On the creation of articles. Plrk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong things with this essay

This essay has been cited somewhere else as some kind of important principle, but I'm not sure about it's legitimacy.

• "Now, however, with the English encyclopedia at 3,108,800 articles, this process is far less important.". Why so? I have to note that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it will never be "complete". Even more, the level of completeness of Wikipedia can't be considered in full, but within topics: the project suffers from Systemic bias, and topics have unbalanced levels of coverage. Perhaps at this point it may be unlikely to find unwritten articles about US movies or videogames (except new ones), but working with South American history I'm used to find severe red links (how can it be that there's no article on Bernardo de Monteagudo yet?) and highly important topics barely beyond the stub level.
• Reading "between the lines", the essay seems to have a point about red links in lists, but fails to acknowledge it's about that and makes a point about red links in general. This goes against official guidelines such as Wikipedia:Red link or Wikipedia:Linking, that clearly set apart acceptable red links from unacceptable ones. This essay does not state anything like that: it states that, as Wikipedia is "complete", then red links can only be links to articles that would have to be deleted. Wrong.
• "As a result of this evolution, these days, editors who add these links often have no intention of writing the redlinked article, ever. This may be simply because writing the article is more time consuming than adding the link to the list or template. "Someone else will do it," the editor reasons.". Yes. Many editors do not have the time/will/knowledge/whatever to write full articles, and make instead minor edits, counting with others to go on and continue the work. Nothing of that is wrong; in fact one of our core guidelines tells users to be bold and edit, either writing featured articles or fixing a small detail.
• "Lastly, it may be because the editor is aware of Wikipedia's new pages patrol, and knows that newly created articles that do not follow Wikipedia policies can be deleted, under the speedy deletion process or another deletion process.". Isn't that a little exaggerated? Most users (and even more the casual ones that make a pair of random edits) will hardly know anything about policies and guidelines, beyond the advises left for them at the edit menu. And even if they stay and learn them, learning about community-related topics is still a higher level of detail. If there are users adding entries to list instead of writing new articles, as a way to purposely evade a certain group of users, that can only be a small and localized problem, unworthy of a general characterization like this.
• "Don't be afraid to subject the article to the new pages patrol, which, after all, is much more focused on article improvement than on article deletion." I would advise removing this sentence. It gives the wrong idea that the "new pages patrol" would be a group with authority to decide what remains and what is deleted, which of course isn't (Subject: verb - "to bring under domination, control, or influence"). Even more, it tells so through a fallacy: stating that "you don't need to be afraid of our authority" starts from the asumption that the one speaking has such authority to begin with. MBelgrano (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the second point: this essay specifies it applies to lists repeatedly, and throughout, and I don't see anything in the essay that in any way impugns redlinks in "normal" articles. The last point is valid; I changed "subject" to "expose." I have tried to continue improving the essay in other ways also. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some search tools

• Category:Lists of software → ("Related changes")
• Category:Lists of companies → ("Related changes")
• Category:Software comparisons → ("Related changes")

Some category specific searches to "lists of.." and "comparisons of...". --Hu12 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples

The examples in this article add no benefit to the article. There is nothing to suggest why they are considered worthy to list as "examples of articles where red link spam has been an issue". Many of these articles don't even have talk pages... --Hm2k (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep this section, I'm likely to remove it later today unless there is a valid reason to keep it. Cheers. --Hm2k (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Hm2k (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion vs. WP:REDLINK

It seems to me that there may be some confusion [1] regarding this article as compared to WP:REDLINK. It might be helpful if the essay started with a note referring readers to that official guideline, so that editors don't misconstrue the scope or reach of the essay. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the essay is pretty clear. In the example you cite, the major problem (as the 3rd opinion made clear) was that an editor erroneously attempted to apply the essay outside of its scope, which is clearly limited only to lists, templates, and disambiguation pages. And in fact WP:REDLINK refers to this essay, saying, "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 the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm just wondering if a reciprocal line pointing to WP:REDLINK near the top of the essay might head off this sort of thing in the future...? It's wikilinked in the prose, but in a way that doesn't really point out that this is a discussion of one aspect of a guideline. Something like {{Content fork|WP:REDLINK}} ("This article covers one aspect of a broader discussion at WP:REDLINK") perhaps, at least in terms of wording? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a shot at it (using prose not the template): what do you think? UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that'll help—thanks! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

usefulness

This essay will be more useful if it makes some attempt to state a position with which most users are likely to agree--if it is a small minority opinion, it belongs in user space. I made one wording change towards this end. I write as one very sympathetic to the work of trying to keep spam entries out of lists--I have a number of articles I try to watch for this purpose, and when necessary, I can be quite ruthless. But it must take account of the established practice that a list in the sense used here is not limited to topics which already have Wikipedia articles, but also to topics obviously qualified for one, and the technique for showing this is to add a suitable descriptor, e.g. senator .

I also suggest that it explicitly recognize that not everything with the word " list" in the title is a list in the sense used here, and that some lists are rather combination articles on things not of of which are separately notable, and that WP:N does not apply to article content.

Further, some lists remain as subject guides, and this use of them is wholly appropriate. It should explicitly say that.

And that we have 3+ million articles is not an indication that most topics are covered. Most topics are covered in some fields, true. But even in such obvious areas where all the subject are notable such as olympic athletes or members of the US congress, there are thousands of articles not yet written.

further, the example atthe end should not relly be one of the most controversial list AfDs we have ever had0--it would make the point better if it were one where there was wider agreement. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with DGG, this essay gives the impression that it is at odds with WP:REDLINK but does not come out and say so. Its opens with "This essay covers one narrow aspect of the redlink guideline" implying the opposite. It should either make it clear that this essay is not compliant with current guidelines or else clarify that redlinks in lists are permitted in some circumstances. As I see it, a redlink is ok in a list if (a) the subject may have an article in the future, meaning that the subject is notable (meeting WP:N) and (b) it verifiably belongs on the list (WP:V). Redlinks in lists are subject to deletion if there is no citation from a reliable source verifying these two points. SpinningSpark 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that that opening sentence is so misleading that I have now refactored it. SpinningSpark 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do not at all believe that this "essay is not compliant with current guidelines." In its intro, WP:REDLINK states, "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." — Satori Son 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

I support the addition to the hatnote (now reverted) which read This essay is not the official Wikipedia redlink guideline, but runs directly contrary to it. The essay does cotradict the MOS as discussed above, so it is only reasonable to warn readers of this so that they do not inadvertently implement it thinking it is within the body of policy. SpinningSpark 01:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Spinningspark, perhaps you want to explain why you're tempted to nominate for deletion (as mentioned on my talk page) or where you feel it runs contrary to official guidelines. The official guideline states "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles.". This essay fits well with that, in that it refers to spam entries or entries that the person has no intention of writing clogging up lists. Greenman (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying this essay only deals with lists, templates and dab pages? That is, articles are specifically excluded from its scope? If so then I agree it is in line with existing policy. But that was not very clear to me on first reading so I still think the hatnote should clarify this, but with a different wording: This essay discusses redlinks in lists, templates and disambiguation pages. For redlinks in articles see the official redlink guideline

Yes - both the nutshell and the first sentence specifically mention lists, templates and disambiguation pages. Greenman (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I might still open a discussion on this issue at VP as I am not convinced there is consensus for this. The disapproval of redlinks in lists was inserted with this edit into WP:REDLINK apparently without discussion and a rather misleading edit summary (if there has been discussion please point me to it). The requirements for featured lists include both completeness and minimal redlinks. That is, some redlinks in a featured list are acceptable; kind of implying that a lesser list might have more redlinks. The redlink issue has been debated numerous times regarding FA and FL and still it remains in the requirements. The most extensive debate concerning FL I could find was Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Archive 2#RfC: Removal of minimal red link criteria in 5a. My reading here is that although controversial, redlinks in lists have consensus. SpinningSpark 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:VP/P#Redlinks in lists and dab pages SpinningSpark 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 87#Redlinks in lists and dab pages. I did not see a clear consensus arise from that discussion. — Satori Son 00:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since editors disagree as to whether this essay contradicts WP:REDLINK or not, I've edited the hatnote language to make it as neutral as possible. It now reads, "For the official guideline on this topic, see Wikipedia:Red link." — Satori Son 00:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish this were true, but...

..it really really really isn't.

Don't worry that the article will be exposed to the new pages patrol, which, after all, is much more focused on article improvement than on article deletion.

New page patrol shouldn't be, but is, a game of whac-a-mole. I rarely see newpage patrollers improve articles which are salvageable, and the few times I do check C:CSD it's still as full of bad A7 and G11 accusations as it was back when I was a newpage patroller and used to fish those articles out of C:CSD. This essay should reflect reality and advise people how not to get their moles whacked. I suggest at least "so long as the article is correctly sourced, neutral in tone and asserts notability" at the start of that sentence. - filelakeshoe 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This essay is not correct, to the extent it varies from policy

A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation.

To the extent that this essay -- the view of one or more editors -- is at odds with the above policy, the above policy trumps it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like looking at redlinks, change their color some other way

And I don't mean by writing a low-quality stub. A stub should have a few sentences of information, per WP:STUB. If you don't have that much, there is nothing that requires you go looking for it, to link an item or person you've added to a list (which requires a cite, but not several sentences of info that the cite might not have).

I've actually just seen this essay used in an argument at Wikipedia talk:Red link. See [2]. Do not pipelink to personal essays to improve your debate position-- that's very close to wikilawyering. It did make me come here to vent my own opinion, since this is an opinion essay.

The idea that WP is now "big enough" that we don't need new articles, is Unitedstatesian's opinion. It's not guideline or policy, and I personally feel it's on par with the idea that we should stop doing research because we know enough already.

This essay contains the explicit idea, under the surface, that redlinks need to be done away with in dabs and lists. However, as I've pointed out many times at Wikipedia talk:Red link, redlinks suffer a terrible prejudice because of their emergency red color. Which, strangely, few people enjoy looking at. However, WP has resisted changing it, so it remains as a bad WP feature that is so far unfixed. If you don't like it personally, you can change your browser settings so what are now redlinks do not appear red to you, but rather look like something else. So, I suggesting doing that, if that's the real reason you agree with this essay. There exist things and people within WP's MoS and policy that deserve a citation and link, but that do not yet have a stub. If you don't like that, you know what you can do. Just don't suggest it's policy to minimize redlinks. It's not. If you want to change their color, just so you don't have to look at them, you can join my own club. Add your voice to mine at Wikipedia talk:Red link. Thanks. SBHarris 00:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, SB - I actually like the bright red links. Yes, they grab our attention but isn't that good? If they were less audacious I think they might tend to escape our notice altogether (what do you think?). lifeform (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Red is Good!

I like to add links and click on them rather than use the search box - it saves work for subsequent users, and also sometimes gives me added perspective and/or allows me to create other helpful or time-saving links/additions (for myself and others). Sometimes (but in my own experience, not so often) this results in RED (GOD PROTECT US!!!) "links". Blue links can of course potentially tell us quite a lot, but when we see the red word(s) it tells us at a glance that there is no article by that name, and possibly no other articles or subtitles that might help - and we have the option of searching for the word(s) in context or perhaps just guessing at the meaning (whichever we prefer). Because WP isn't a book we have these kinds of luxuries (!). lifeform (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RED

"Red-linking within lists is only helpful to editors, not readers" - is a nonsense. Length of the list (number of items) can used to estimate depth of the topic.

Sometimes readers want to know number of the programming languages, but wait List of programming languages was pruned by some maniacs and has 1/3 of the programming languages at very best.

But well, all of the articles were removed after somebody seen Wikipedia:WTAF link. As a result, readers get only 1/3 of the topics without hope to know about other topics, because fuck you dear reader. Ushkin N (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks are useful due to the [what links here] button

The authors of this essay may not use the [what links here] buttons, and so can't imagine that readers use them. Well I use them, and I used them way back when I was just a wikipedia reader, not a contributor.

When the wikipedia does not yet have a specific article on a topic, but does have a redlink, an experienced reader may sometimes find the information they are looking for by following the redlink and then pressing [what links here]. The information they seek, the RS they need to read and consult, may be found in the context surrounding the instances of the redlink in the related articles that used the redlink.

I believe this is a very strong argument against the central thesis of this essay. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• In particular Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first#Red-linking_in_navigation currently says:: "Creating red links in purely navigational features of Wikipedia, like navigation templates, disambiguation pages, and "see also" sections, directly interferes with the actual function of these features, which is to help readers navigate the already existing Wikipedia resources relevant to the topic."

Bzzzt! Wrong! Redlinks enhance the navigation of the "already existing Wikipedia resources relevant to the topic", through the use of the [what links here] button.

This essay is written as if it had the authority of policy. I think this is a problem because it may actually represent a minority opinion. I'd like to see it undergo an authoritectomy, so it no longer carried an inappropriate tone of authority. Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The cited explanation in the essay makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it.

As for finding related articles using the red link, that is a very marginal use case that may only be of interest to a very tiny fraction of users, and I can't see it as a reason to pollute articles with red links for everybody. The arguments against red links presented in the essay are far stronger. Besides, searching for pages linking to a non-existing page is generally useful when you want to remove the links (e.g. when the article was deleted). In most cases, it's just a misguided effort, as pages should not link to a non-existing article, and if they do, the links should be removed. And since you're specifically mentioning experienced readers, they can certainly find the related pages without red links. You don't need red links for finding pages that link to non-existing articles.

Finally, the essay clearly states it is an essay. Even though it is true that some essays carry more weight than others, if there is strong consensus. And this essay certainly has a lot of support in the community (I really don't think it represents a minority opinion). For example, WP:CIR was originally an essay, but it was so essential and widely agreed upon that it later became an official explanatory supplement to the WP:DE guideline. As a member of WikiProject Spam and someone who has been fighting spam and vandalism on Wikipedia for 14 years, I find this essay crucial for maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.—J. M. (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)