This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was that the new rule wording for FA redlinks will read "have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates."—Xwing328(Talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This CT proposes an addendum to the current FAN redlink policy, which states that a Featured article must "have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction." I propose that we take this one step further for the sake of a clean article presentation to say that a Featured article must have no red links in the infobox or any templates. The new rule wording would read that an FA must "have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates."
This makes perfect sense for a Featured Article as I usually expected 'em to be totally complete. While I can see GAs having mebbe one or two redlinks due to the possibility that there may not be information available to create the proper articles, I had often forgotten that the "three redlink rule" applied to FAs as well. I was under the impression that an FA was not to have any redlinks as it is an example of the epitome of article perfection. Nixing the redlink rule will help to ensure that more care is taken and more work is devoted to the quality of the article. Trak NarRamble on 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst a redlink is, IMO, hardly an indicator of an article's perfection, this would be best for presentational purposes. Thefourdotelipsis 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For presentation's sake, yes. JorrelFraajic 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This CT will not apply to Appearance/Sources redlinks. They still count toward the three-redlink limit, however. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a much bigger priority for me. I'm comfortable with - even fond of - a redlink or three in a Featured Article, but there's no excuse for not having complete sourcing information for said article. jSarek 00:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a new CT is in order (in addition to this one)? ;) Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually . . . I think it may already be required under a strict reading of Requirement 3, that the article must "…be sourced with all available sources and appearances." What do you think? If not, I'll hammer out a CT, because this is a loophole we definitely ought not have. jSarek 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I don't really see the strict reading; I just see, even in its strictest form, Requirement 3 to say "Look through all sources, and find a way to incoperate them all." I'm willing to hear your explanation, though. JorrelFraajic 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The key wording there is "strict," when interpreting that rule, of course. I think it would be best to go ahead with the CT in order to clear up the inevitable loopholing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I screwed up; I'm actually thinking of Requirement 11, "…be completely referenced for all available material and sources." It's not COMPLETELY referenced unless full bibliographic information is available at the link. Nonetheless, I'll cook up a CT to clarify the matter. jSarek 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for explaining :) JorrelFraajic 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
An observation: I don't think this CT applies to the overall count of the redlinks in an FA, only to redlinks found on the high-traffic parts; that is, the introduction (seen on the front page), the infobox (the quick-look information finder), and templates (which can have effects on... something or other). JorrelFraajic 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. This is not to change the accepted number of red links, only where they may be found. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.