Help talk:Editing

Redlinks Gone Wild!

Where should we draw the line between redlinks ("Hopefully someone will write an article about this topic!") and offsite links ("here's more info on this topic")?

I think we've addressed it in Help:Editing#Creating pages of what page will be worthy of our standards. And about linking in Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor.

Awesome! These rules both seem reasonable to me, and also give me the confidence to make edits knowing I'm backed up by the consensus. Mrsnooze (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2016 (EST)

By my reckoning, anything that a /g/entooman has an opinionated angle on, or anything that can be crassly simplified deserves a page on our wiki. Boring/Obvious/Clearly Defined stuff like MMORPG or Zork are probably better off either unlinked, or linked to an appropriate page (e.g. Wikipedia). /g/ents may have something to say about them, but I reckon it's unlikely to be a fleshed-out article anytime soon.

Furthermore, if an externally linked article later becomes a fleshed out article, it's easy to relink to the IGW article. In the meantime, the externally linked article will let anons learn more, whereas a redlink will stop them in their tracks.

Okay, I'll address this later in Help:Editing, if you think redlinks should be eradicated, *but* it's not worthy of the standards, make an interwiki link or external links instead.

EDIT: See Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor, point 3.  Morpheus talk 10:54, 26 February 2016 (EST)

p.s. Not picking on the MUD article at all - it's a great article. I've just been going through Special:WantedPages and most of the wanted articles are single reference affairs.

Mrsnooze (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2016 (EST)