Help talk:Red links

Red links on user pages
As we work through the wanted pages list, there is found to be a substantial number of redlinks that originate on user pages and user talk pages. Is it worth making a rule that user page redlinks can remain for a certain period, but are either then created by said user, or a warning given and then the link subsequently replaced with bold text? User talk page redlinks ditto, but shorter period of grace and after say two months anyone can delink and replace with bold?:--Remarcsd 04:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Don't like rules - play by ear better! SJG  sjg  11:27, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I tend to freely dered talk pages - the "link" is often totally irrelevant, or was being discussed before deletion. Sometimes for less keystrokes I just "nowiki" them.  As far as user space, we've kind of been doing several reasonably polite things - single links that we are "sure" should go (like, we just moved an article and killed the redirect) just get fixed or unlinked, with a polite note.  Pages with lots of links (sandboxes, etc.) usually generate a nice request on the user's talk page to either fix it or let us do so.  Oh, and also, if I recognize the user as someone who hasn't been around for months, I'll just clean it up and leave a nice "forgive the intrusion" note.  Remember, they can always revert if they are bothered. human be in 13:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Susan, I am not a particular fan of them either, and the rule was more to give the person coming in to fix the problem some protection if someone got upset over the removal of the link. As far as talk pages are concerned I will tiptoe in and de-link, and usually bold instead, but I have been loath to mess with a user page, in spite of humans point that the user can always revert it.:--Remarcsd 17:55, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but away with tiptoeing in - big boots & lots of noise ;-) The only time apology is really needed is user pages and essay pages. I tend to say something in the talk page and give it a day then either de-link or change the link. If someone's likely (you can check the edit history & interpolate) to be sorting it then I leave it alone. If it's ancient then amend it & tell 'em in the talk page. Mobocracy is the only rule - let the mob decide. SJG  sjg  18:10, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree pretty much with Susan. Remarcsd, the reason I like to "nowiki" talk page links is to "show" that it was "linked" by whoever typed it, maintaining context.  Not that I see anything wrong with your bolding. human be in 18:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Its business as usual then; please excuse me while I go and get my steel cap boots on :) :--Remarcsd 00:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Wanted Page
While special:wantedpages could be useful, on further examination it turns out that a lot of them are linked to from talk pages. I figured this is slightly misleading as to what really is "wanted", so it's not really much use at all. A lot of them seem to be due to copying stuff verbatim from Conservapedia therefore the tags are still there. Is there a way of cropping it to just mainspace and CPspace links as we could either create all the articles mentioned (needless) or edit them out of people's talk posts (generally frowned upon)?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 14:09, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's a great idea. People also create  for humor, also on talk pages of course.  I wonder if one of those &namespace=X suffixes would work on special:wanted pages?  ħ uman  15:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * By the way, whenever I go trolling through wantedpages, I look at the inlinks before "writing", to see if they just need to be deredded...  ħ uman  15:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

You are encouraged to edit this page to de-red the link?
What about castle and all that? -- Nx  / talk 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't really say that there's any kind of enforced rule on that. 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Nx: changed to "your own". @PH: No but you are  encouraged to; no? 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, makes much more sense now, thanks. -- Nx  / talk 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)