Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2015.

MLB Japan Opening Series 2012[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9#MLB Japan Opening Series 2012

Genie (feral child[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this redirect for deletion, as it serves no purpose and only clutters the database and creates unnecessary overhead whenever someone will sort and organize the incoming links into the target article for maintenance reasons in the future. While I am all pro redirects guiding a user to the correct or at least a related title, this particular redirect represents nothing but a very implausible typo (the closing bracket of the disambiguation term is missing), which is extremely unlikely to be typed into the search box by a human ever again. It has no relevant edit history and no relevant incoming links, therefore it can be deleted safely. Thanks. Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fairly Strong Delete as harmful. I run a script occasionally to clean out errant redirects from {{R from ambiguous page}} and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (Basically, the difference between the two is a parenthetical qualifier). Redirects like this cause a problem for the script because of the missing parenthesis. It falls in that weird gray area between the two which makes it a pretty big pet peeve of mine. If we can get rid of these unhelpful and useless redirects, it will make my life a lot easier in the future. Tavix |  Talk  23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, apparently it's a lot more useful than I thought. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Striking my !vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unlikely typo, typo is in the form of a malformed disambiguation, which is an artefact of wikipedia, not the world at large -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't support creating large numbers of redirects involving parenthetical disambiguation with the closing parenthesis stripped off, but in cases where redirects like this have been created, it is likely for a specific reason (typically heavy linking from off Wikipedia) and usually ought to be kept. The issue is that some of the minilanguages used in Internet commenting systems - especiallyMarkdown which is used on Reddit, Github, and elsewhere - use parentheses to format URLs as links, and can become very confused by URLs containing parentheses, often formatting them as a link with the final closing parenthesis stripped from the URL. This in turn will cause readers from offsite who follow the broken link to be misdirected to a confusing and unhelpful page that, among other things, suggests creating the article that they thought was already there. A redirect is a simple fix that does very little harm, and posing difficulties for those who do onsite maintenance must come in second to that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're rationale is completely hypothetical. Do you have any evidence that this is occurring for this particular redirect? Tavix |  Talk  14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was created specifically because it was a redlink with high traffic [1]. What I posted above is the explanation for redlinks of this form receiving high traffic. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your original rationale, you offered suggestions for why redirects like this might be useful, but failed to specifically address this one. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Genie (feral child is linked elsewhere, perhaps from Reddit or Github? Tavix |  Talk  17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't offer exact search results; Google seems to really want to include results that include the correctly formatted link no matter how strictly I try to search for only the malformatted one, and Reddit's own search function is great for finding submitted links but lousy for searching comments, which is where the bad links occur. What I can say is that the page creator regarded it as a high-traffic redlink (per the edit summary) and that the article itself is higly linked on Reddit [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Striking my vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful) - the stats are compelling, 500+ hits to the redirect in February. Someone ought to cluebat whoever's writing that lousy code on those Markdown pages, but we can't control that from here. Ivanvector (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty much with Ivanvector. I'm a software engineer of more years than I care to think of and I would be sacked if I wrote code that forgot something as simple as matching parens: But it does no harm and gets hits. We don't kinda have a bug system here to record these. (Well, not an effective one.) We are the bug system here, in the sense we have to clear up others' mess. But removing it is more harmful thank keeping it, however "wrong" it is. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea that we have redirects for all naming variants as well as all reasonable variants of capitalization and spelling in use somewhere, including some(!) resulting from common (and therefore likely) misspellings (like pronounciation redirecting to pronunciation). However, the "Genie (feral child" redirect is of a different quality, as it is not likely to be used by humans at all. I don't think it would be wise trying to masquerade bugs or problems by adding highly artificial "misspelling variants" for titles ending on a closing bracket to our database, in particular, if it does not address a problem within Wikipedia itself, but elsewhere. Following this logic, if we would do it for "Genie (feral child", we would have to do this for ten-thousands of similar entries in Wikipedia as well, as there is nothing special about why such an error would occur only with "Genie (feral child", but not with other similar entries. Further, we would also have to add entries for constructions like "Genie feral child)", "Genie [feral child]" and so on - the list is endless. Such problems must be fixed at a logically different level than trashing our database with uncountable invalid entries. They must be fixed where they occur, not in Wikipedia. At most, we could add a general "rule" to our "smart" search engine to still find the proper article when someone omits the bracket.
From a software developer's perspective, I consider the set of incoming redirects into an article as a formal definition of the proper "interface" to a piece of content (the article). Including misspellings (beyond things like pronounciation) invalides the interface and creates unnecessary maintenance overhead forever. The unnecessary complexity may even allow difficult to detect actual bugs to creap in over time. While a single such entry doesn't harm, an attitude to never clean up such trash will first turn into an annoyance and later into a burden for editors at some point in the future. Therefore I still think this redirect should be deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Excuse me, @65.94.43.89:, but do you take me for a general idiot or a specific one? The link you gave, which I checked, is a difference page and not a stats one: so I am not sure why you say it is. Necessarily we do not know how many people find a redlink: cos they don't get a hit. It was created by @Anthony Appleyard:, but I think mistakenly. Try again. Or, do your homework. You've led me to a "stats" page that actually is the page differences between what that good editor created and what you did afterwards. That does not help the discussion. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake, but that's just leading other editors up the garden path, and leaving them there. Having checked the history, the last edit was declined as Speedy Delete on 29 March, i.e., in my time late yesterday, and so it comes here. which is fine, but you have to argue your case and you will get a fair hearing. Throwing that kind of nonsense in does neither. I checked the history and you have had no contribution to it. People like Appleyard and User:Gorobay who does an enormous amount of work on Wikipedia, and a couple of others I don't know but I imagine contribute in other places, have done. It was put to me fairly simply when I was eighteen and said "Thereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent", quoting Wittgenstein: The reply, quite rightly, was "Or if you don't know, shut up". Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do believe the stats tool can produce stats for redlinks, if you have one in mind that is commonly searched. I can't think of one to test with, but it should be possible. Also, the {{Rfd2}} template is making bad links to the stats tool. It should not be replacing spaces in article titles with "+" to pass to the tool, that makes the tool look for a page that doesn't exist. If you click on the stats link and get a stats page with no hits where you're sure that there should be some, try looking for plus signs in the page name box. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please write out your rants in a single edit if at all possible, and use the preview button. Edit conflicts suck, especially on pages that get long and contain multiple threads like these ones. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry for the ec. I Dunno, what do you do with the spaces? As for the small edits, I think that is just a difference of opinion, I wrote an essay many years ago with someone else, unfortunately I don't think active, called WP:OWNFEET that says, in the lede, "every edit has to stand on its own feet". I.e. you can't write sixteen edits in one go and bung them all in because other editors cannot then pick out what is wrong or right about them. I know others disagree, and in fact an opposing opinion is linked in the bottom of that article.
I am not ranting, I am arguing strongly. No evidence for this was provided, and in fact the link was a complete fool's errand. So I asked the contributor to provide more evidence. What would you do? Perhaps a bit strong, maybe, but come on, it's an IP contributor who has requested SPEEDY, been declined, come here with no evidence.
By the way, I did some ce on your lovely stub at, I forget what it was now, but anything you don't like, I shan't at all be offended by you changing it or taking it out. I think it's looking good as a stub.
I do not actually rant. Ever seen me swear? Perhaps I was a little strong, but I got a thank you today, on my talk page, which seems lately to have been used as a general debating chamber rather than a talk page, from a new user here with moving something from AfD to RfD. I do not expect people to expect to know all the "rules" and "procedures" and so on; perhaps I was a little stern, but an IP editor whose only contribution is to list something at CSD -- c'mon -- that's pushing it. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think what people take offense to is "do your homework". Well, do your homework. I check my bookshelves and stuff before I come here with things. I know I had to throw about a thousand out, but I have a few left, and I check what the etymology or spelling of something is before I come here. Ambrose Bierce defines in The Devil's Dictionary that Education is that which "Reveals to the wise, and disguises from the foolish, their lack of understanding". And I can quote that without even looking it up. I have a very good memory, and I translate and edit articles. Maybe it is time for a WP:WIKIBREAK because I do get fed up with this sometimes, I volunteer a lot of time here and get very little thanks for it. Well I am not sure if I am wise or foolish but I certainly know I don't know everything. Just trying to make this encyclopaedia better. Handover to you probably, nearly time for bed. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to check and sort out that Rfd2 template and report back but this will take me a bit of time. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are: try searching stats for the redlink User:Gorobay: stats. Working backwards, Genie (feral child was hit more than 5,000 times on 19 Aug 2013 at which time it would have been a redlink, since the redirect was created six days later. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Google seems to really want to include results that include the correctly formatted link no matter how strictly I try to search for only the malformatted one": In my experience Google seems to search for words and numbers only and seems to ignore punctuation and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're going on about. I left no links in my opinion. and my only reply in this section prior to this one was filed before you participated; which clearly does not involve you at all. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (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.

Quickscope[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both redirects, since "Quickscopeing" is not a glitch and is a common practice in many FPS video games. Rayukk (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added that one as well. 92.203.149.81 (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't put my finger on it, but something makes me thing this is a film system to run the 35mm through the projector a bit quicker, essentially to get the film done quicker so you can get get home to your wife quicker (as if that is ever desirable) but more that you could run it more often, like in the Movietone days. I can't put my finger on it, but like Cinemascope etc was it just a brand name for a name of projector? I am sure I have seen it somewhere but can't put my finger on it: it it was, would have been in the 1930s, I imagine. With a good old film projector your running speed is essentially controlled by the Latham loop, which takes up all the tension on the film reel as a pinchwheel, it is all digital now so not necessary, but you run it through a Quickscope and it allows you to run the film a bit faster, so you can get more audiences in. Maybe that is just me. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable FPS term. At best this is a meme. Google search did not yield any useful links about it. --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_29&oldid=1142587148"