Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposite Track Path

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on merger target, but there appears to be a consensus that is the solution. The remainder can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Track Path[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Opposite Track Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced. I couldn't find any sources beyond random non-notable Internet encyclopedias, some of which are just re-hosting this article. There has been an unresolved "no sources" template attached since 2014, and the last non-trivial edits to the article were in the same year (there was one trivial maintenance edit in 2020). Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article subject is mentioned in the DVD+R DL article (Dual-layer recording section). Sourcing there is not stellar, but it could serve as an ideal redirect target (Opposite Track Path looks like a plausible search term). Pavlor (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTP can be used in dual-layer DVDs generally, including commercial pressing as well as both the -R and +R recordable formats. It's not exclusive to the +R specification nor has any special significance there, so that doesn't seem like the most correct target for a hypothetical redirect. (As an aside, I'm actually a bit surprised that one specific recordable DVD specification is notable enough to have its own article in the first place.)

      In my opinion there is not a great case for a redirect anyway. The Opposite Track Path page averages less than one view per day and the top Google hit for "opposite track path" is that page. (Additionally, the next two hits are each verbatim re-hosts.) Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every source that I can lay my hands on in 2 minutes, including Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs, treats OTP and PTP together. The sensible place for this would seem to be DVD#Dual-layer discs, because that's how Mueller (ISBN 9780133105360 pages 556–557) and other sources treat it too. It isn't there now, and clearly a merger is in order.

    That said: Techn1ciaN-A1- please crack some books some time. There are books that cover this subject from ISBN 9780596005887 page 318 through ISBN 9780071420389 pages 31–32 and ISBN 9780071663472 page 249 to ISBN 9780071423984 page 7—27. If you couldn't find any sources at all, you weren't looking correctly. The WWW is not the only thing to search.

    Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry; I should have been clearer. I meant that I "couldn't find any sources" in the WP:N sense, not in the WP:V sense. As you point out, reliable sources only treat the subject as one part of the broader DVD topic.

      I didn't think to suggest a merge because the Opposite Track Path article has no substantive sourced content at all, so there's nothing that would be straightforward to drop into the DVD article as-is (to my understanding), unless the DVD article already has references that would verify the text.

      One other thing: The OTP article text suggests that the PTP / OTP distinction is also relevant to Blu-rays. If that is true and the OTP article does have mergeable content, would it be appropriate to also merge that content into the Blu-ray article at the same time?

      Thanks for your input, Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • There is content already there verifiable from books. Not citing sources does not mean unverifiable. It just means more effort for the poor editors, us, who come along later long after something has been written, 14 years in this case, to find sources and check that what was written was right and fix it if it is not. Personally, I'm inclined towards the same solution that I took with Online (AfD discussion) and Off-line (AfD discussion) 16 years ago: handle PTP and OTP/RSDL as one. Discuss two sides of the same coin as one. Here's there's an obvious place that doesn't require a stand-alone article. An example of things to fix when merging: ISBN 9780071663472 page 303 says that PTP does not apply to Blu-Ray. That solves the problem of merger targets. All of this can be done without administrator tools, without administrator involvement, and thus without AFD. It just takes a little research, to check that the content is supportable and either support it or correct it, and the willingness to write. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opposite_Track_Path&oldid=1085033227"