User talk:MPWikiEdits/Archive/2017-11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To return to the list of my archives, please click here.

STOP. If you want to talk with me, please click here.

Red links[change source]

Auntof6 simply told me that red links should not be deleted because they tell other Wikipedia users where articles should be created. I completely understood.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, MPWikiEdits. I noticed that some of your recent changes unlinked terms because they were red links. On this Wikipedia, we do not do that, because red links help us see where articles need to be created. If you can change a red link so that it links to an article here, that's good, but otherwise the link should be left as it is. There is information about this at Wikipedia:Red link. If you have any questions about thus, feel free to ask. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, your message has been noted. I will not clean up any more red links on this Wikipedia (Simple English) for the reasons you provided above. Thank you.
--MPWikiEdits (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The Star[change source]

Auntof6 simply told me that it is acceptable to have red links in disambiguation pages. If The Star (movie) for 2017, which is red-linked in this disambiguation page, becomes notable, an article can be created for it to correct the red link. I still believe that 2017 movie in the disambiguation page be black because I think it will never become notable. However, because Auntof6 is an administrator on this Wikipedia, I do not want to act like I am trying to challenge her either. As a result, I decided to dismiss this topic entirely.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, again. FYI, I changed The Star (1952 movie) back to an article and changed The Star back to a dab page. Even though we currently have an article for only one of the movies, it's OK for a dab page to have redlinked entries. In other words, dab pages can disambiguate between things that we don't have articles for. It's possible that someone would mention "The Star" and mean the 2017 movie, so it's better to have that as a dab.

Also, when you change the purpose of a page (for example, changing between being a dab and non-dab, or changing what an article is about), please look at whether the page is in Wikidata. If it is, you probably need to change at least one Wikidata entry as well.

Thanks, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, thank you for the message. However, I cannot seem to understand why you would delete an article for The Star (2017 movie) and yet keep the red link to it in the dab page. If the movie is not that popular, then yes, it should not have its own article, but we could just simply mention the 2017 movie in the dab without a red link on it. Perhaps, if the movie becomes popular, the article for the 2017 movie can be remade and the link to it on the dab can be put back.
Above, you said that red links are left in articles so that new articles can be created. However, if The Star (2017 movie) is not that popular yet, there is no reason for anyone to recreate the article for it right now, so the red link can be removed until it becomes popular.
As for Wikidata, I already understand how pages in this Wikipedia are joined with other Wikipedia pages in Wikidata. I just did not know that The Star article that I changed had a place in Wikidata.
Otherwise, your message has been noted. Feel free to kindly let me know of any mistakes I have made here or in any of my changes. Thanks.
--MPWikiEdits (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  Dab pages distinguish between pages: each entry on a page needs a link to an existing or potential article. They are helpful even with red links. One reason is that someone might create an article here and mention just "The Star". When we see that link to the dab page, we can fix it to point to the correct movie, even if we don't have the article. That's better than leaving it to point to the dab page. If "The Star" redirected to a specific movie, we would never see whether some of the links to it were for the other movie. In other words, someone might link to an article we don't have yet, but we want even the red links to be accurate.
Also keep in mind that it is WP:Notability, not popularity, that determines whether an article is kept. I deleted the article because it didn't show notability, but it could be recreated if notability is shown. If that happens, we will already have the dab page in place. In the meantime, having the red link on the dab page helps people distinguish between the movies. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[change source]

If you are saying that the red link is being kept for the future if and when the 2017 movie becomes "notable," then this is acceptable. Also, it would be helpful if you could provide important differences between the idea of "popularity" and Wikipedia's idea of notability. How exactly is a subject for Wikipedia thought to be "notable"?
--MPWikiEdits (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's being kept for both the present and the future. For the present, it's to distinguish between the two movies. An article might mention the 2017 movie even though we don't have an article for it right now. If that happens, we'd want the article to link to the specific movie instead of to the dab page, even if the link for the specific movie is red. For the future, it's being kept in case the article is created (not in case the movie becomes notable -- it may already be notable).
Note that there's a difference between a subject (such as a movie) being notable and its article showing notability. For example, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is definitely a notable person. However, if the article about her only said that she was born in the UK, that wouldn't show notability because being born in the UK doesn't make people notable. The guideline on notability, which we both linked above, explains what Wikipedia needs to show notability. I recommend reading that, then asking any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to read that article, but based on what I already know from reading that article and your above explanation, I can only think that an article that shows notability on a notable subject gives important and useful information on that notable subject.
Also, in my previous comment, I meant to point out that you seemed to say that you are leaving the red link so that, in the future, an article for that link can be created if the subject ["The Star" (2017 movie)] at that time is shown to be notable. If you think that notability on Wikipedia is an important element that I should know about, feel free to clearly explain if my description here is still not right on Wikipedia's idea of notability.
--MPWikiEdits (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.