User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Red links

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when the topic is notable, i.e., could plausibly sustain a reliably sourced article. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the disambiguation page title and create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.

If other articles also include this red link, that is usually a good indication that the topic qualifies, though absence of such links is not a reliable indicator of lack of notability. You can use "Show preview" to see the entry with the red link, click through it, and then use "What links here" to see if any other articles use the red link. (See Help:What links here for more information.) This technique is not always helpful, especially with red links that have disambiguated names themselves – the subject of Example (Canadian band) might be red-linked, or even be an extant article, at Example (metal band) or some other article name.

In contrast to normal entries, which are usually one link each, red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, especially one that also red-links the topic in question or at least mentions it, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.

If the entry is unlikely to ever have an article about it, then do not red-link it, and instead link only to an article about whatever class the topic is a member of. It is permissible but not necessary to link to the topic's specific section at the target article, if one exists (do this in the link to the named main article, instead of creating a piped title link).

A contrived example:

Badminton may refer to:

In this example, the sport already has an article, the band may be appropriate for a future article, the flying disc technique probably would not (but is linked to a section that, in our hypothetical example, does already exist at the main article on such techniques), the struck example (which would not actually appear on the disambiguation page) shows how not to link to sections, and the noodle is neither notable enough for its own article nor linked to anything more specific than the article about noodles.