From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Red links[edit]

Is there a point in having over 20 red links in this disambig page? I doubt the point of having any at all. Your thoughts, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although we are not a Gazetteer, in the specific context of a disambiguation page I think there is some utility - especially if they are ordered according to population size and or importance and the red links include geo co-ordinates or some other quick way of pinpointing their location for disambiguation purposes. --W. Frankemailtalk 02:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, fair enough, but not redink for crossroads or dots on the map. And usually we don these things alphabetically don't we? --Inas (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ABC order by countries or within countries is not a good idea because
a) we're not a gazetteer - where people can go to if they want hundreds of possibilities ordered by ABC
b) our "added value" over an ABC ordered Gazetteer is because we don't include every "crossroads or dots on the map" but rather put the most likely place they're looking for (in this case, Kingston, the one million people populated capital of Jamaica) in "pole" position. That "by importance" principle has operated since at least as early as 2006 and can be seen at London_(disambiguation). That principle also means that some culling may be in order if it's felt that some of the redlinks are never going to have meaningful WV aricles... --W. Frankemailtalk 13:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That leaves the suburban communities problem. Do Kingston (Pennsylvania) and its 13,000 people merit a listing if that community is directly across a river from Wilkes-Barre? I also see that "They are listed here in order of decreasing population size and importance by country" but someone has been actively removing population figures from this page. For instance, I have no idea whether Kingston NH is comparable in size to Kingston (Tennessee); the latter has an article but it's pretty sparse. 00:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all red links should be removed. I do not see these as listings; they are links to articles. So the question of how big a redlinked place needs to be to have a listing is in my opinion irrelevant. If you think a place merits its own article on the basis of Wikivoyage:What is an article, start one and include several listings within the article, at least: "X is in Y Region" is not a real article. Finally, I do not think we should be mentioning population on a disambiguation page; if that's important for a visitor to know, it should be mentioned in the linked articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll go further: Unless anyone objects, I will remove all the red links within 48 hours. 10 years is more than long enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just completed a major cleanup in which I deleted a whole host of red links and information inessential for disambiguation. I also alphabetized by country, except for leaving Kingstown for last because it's not the same name. I hope everyone agrees that I've made the page more readable. There's no reason to include lots of inessential information on a disambig page, in my opinion, and as for the red links, they can be restored if and when there's an article about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]