User talk:Primefac/Fmadd

Sorting out the list

As of the time of this posting, I have only deleted those redirects that had zero incoming links. Anyone who is interested in helping out is welcome to move redirects to the most appropriate section ("delete", "discuss", or "keep").

Personally, I think that all of the links in the "1-2 incoming links" section should be deleted outright, since as near as I can tell they were all created and linked to by Fmadd. However, there are probably some good ones in there so I'm amenable to discussion on that point. The rest should all be evaluated, and I suspect that a good majority of the 3+ and 11+ will be kept.

I included the DAB and articles in the list mostly for posterity, but also because I noticed the DABs probably could be deleted without much issue. Again, open to discussing and/or bringing them to AFD if no consensus can be reached here. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I allowed to modify these redirects?

I'm wondering whether I'm allowed to boldly edit redirects I consider appropriate, including redirect categorization as well as actual retargeting. If so, how I should modify the list once I have made such an edit?

For example, I have the following suggestions after making a quick glance:

• RGB color values and RGB image should probably point to RGB color model or a section thereof
• Fruit beers should have {{R from plural}} added
• Scattering (physics) should have {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} added

A couple that need both categorization and retargeting:

• Packed pixel format should be a {{R from long name}} to Packed pixel, unless you wish to delete it
• YUV color space should be a {{R from long name}} to YUV, unless you wish to delete it

--SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SoledadKabocha, go for it! The more the merrier (and the less hair I pull out). If you end up changing a redir (like the fruit beers) feel free to move it to the "keep" section. If there's something iffy that you think could use discussion, move it to the "discuss" section. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard what I said about the two beginning with "RGB"; the terms are mentioned in the target article (Glossary of computer graphics), but the anchors are currently broken and need to be retargeted to the corresponding lettered section. I will do have done that now, but I still have slight doubts whether the redirects should be kept, especially the plural "RGB color values." It might be a day or so before I decide on that and get to the rest of these that I mentioned. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC) (+ 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

Another point on which I misspoke: I failed to notice that YUV color space already pointed to YUV, but I did end up doing what I said above about the Rcat. Now to look over the list again... --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done

Tazerdadog, I've finished up with the redirects and DABs. I don't see any of the articles fitting any "speedy" deletion, so those I'll go through and AFD if necessary. Let the discussion begin!

The only ones I'm planning on deleting outright are the "uncontroversial" sections, which includes the list of 1-2-link redirects, and the DABs that have no reasonable incoming links. The rest I'll probably end up taking to XFD. Feel free during your check to move pages to different sections if you feel they're in the wrong place. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I will check them over at my earliest convenience, although I am busy in real life for the next couple of days. I should have all of your deletes endorsed or flagged for discussion in a week. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I am performing my analysis on the "uncontroversial" section. It can be found at User:Primefac/Fmadd/Analysis by Tazerdadog. I have found myself endorsing over half of the redirects so far at 10% completion, so I am asking the nukes to be postponed. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have done the first 100 now. I wound up with 61 keeps, and 39 deletes (in two categories based on how controversial I thought it was). Doing some statistics, there is a 95% chance that I will advocate keeping more than 52% of Fmadds redirects in this category, absent some systemic bias. I am going to hold off for a while, to give you a chance to review my work. You tend to be further towards the deletionist end than I am, so I suspect there will be a few disagreements among my keeps. I often was spending as little as ten seconds per redirect before classifying them, so if it looks like I missed something, I probably did. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Redirects are cheap, I guess. Tazerdadog, if you're finding that most of these are plausible/not terrible, I'll respect that. I think the majority of the implausible redirects were the ones with zero incoming links and have been deleted.

I am finding that most are plausible, but you should take that evaluation with a grain of salt. A correlation between the number of incoming links and redirect quality seems likely, but I can't tell for sure without examining them.

I see that the other 10 "uncontroversial" redirects (the ones outside the cot/cob) are not on your list - what are your thoughts on those? Primefac (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Copy/Pasting those redirects here for ease of discussion, and interspersing comments on each redirect.

• Agricultural product (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 5 - redirects to List of agricultural products. Unless I'm mistaken, this sort of thing should be piped, since you're not actually linking to a page about agricultural products, but instead a list of APs.

Assuming the AFD ends in a delete, dabifying this redirect, or deletion are both defensible. Ideally, this should have an article at this title. No objection to a deletion. This is a very plausible search term, so I am not sure where you are going with the piped link argument. Tazerdadog (talk)

• Blood chemistry (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 6 - redirects to Clinical chemistry. I checked usage, and none of them relate to clinical chemistry (bad target). "Blood chemistry" is "what is in the blood", and the only target I can find it "blood". Thus, similar to scattering event, it's an unnecessary redirect.

I see what he was trying to do here, but this has an wp:XY problem of referring both to the chemical composition of blood, and the tests used in medicine. Deletion Endorsed.Tazerdadog (talk)

• Ferromagnetic material (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 13 - redirects to Ferromagnetism, which is also what Ferromagnetic does (i.e. fully redundant)

This goes to Ferromagnetism#Ferromagnetic materials, which seems like a perfectly sensible target. Tazerdadog (talk)

• Application code (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 19 - redirects to Glossary of computer software terms, another page made by Fmadd. "Application code" is "code used by an application". I really don't see how this merits a redirect.

I generally don't see redirects like this as a problem, this article is the proper landing spot for this search. That said, the target article is in sad shape, which leads to these problems. I'd keep this redirect unless the article is deleted, but I'd likely advocate deleting the article, and letting someone else start over Tazerdadog (talk)

• Synthetic plastic (redir) --- links --- incoming links:4 - unnecessary DAB

Deletion or refining to plastic#Natural vs synthetic are the two defensible options. I'd tend to lean toward deletion though.Tazerdadog (talk)

• Golden age of prosperity (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 3 - rather nonsensical link, as the incoming links are not about the Golden Age but rather about a generic (and unrelated) term.

A quick google revealed that this term is not widely used or significant. Delete. Tazerdadog (talk)

• Texture recognition (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 3 - usage is unnecessary, subject is not directly mentioned in target, and "texture recognition" as it's linked currently is just "recognition of textures", which need no link.

While the primary topic is the computer term, the article fails to discuss it. Delete unless there is a better target. Tazerdadog (talk)

• Even by their own admission, these are vague and not-directly-related redirects
  • Compile-time polymorphism (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 3

The target does not go into enough depth about this topic to be helpful to a reader. Delete. Tazerdadog (talk)

• • Runtime polymorphism (redir) --- links --- incoming links: 4

This target is not a perfect fit, but does contain enough to help someone who typed this into a search bar. Tazerdadog (talk)

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)