This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2013.
Are "last name, first name" redirects common on Wikipedia?, because even if Hoblit is not a common name on this site, a disambiguation page should suffice to help with any confusion with this name. The only other another article with this name is Hoblit House. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This was originally redirected to Homophobia#Heterophobia, but after a discussion about whether to split it to a separate article, was redirected to the Wiktionary site. The redirect is misleading as it suggests that there's no relevant encyclopedia content, when there is, at Homophobia#Heterophobia, which mentions this ambiguity and also gives context and preferred terms, more than what a dictionary definition provides; this section is a better target for the redirect. Other similar terms ( hetrophobia, heterophobic, heterophobe) already redirect to it. The other non-misleading option would be a disambiguation page, but I can't find another article to link to. Peter James ( talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
Toc limit|3}}
means it doesn't appear in the table of contents.
Peter James (
talk)
23:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The term does seem to have some currency: a Google News search turns up three recent pieces that mention it [1] [2] [3]. — rybec 00:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Following up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Mass creation of very improbable redirects, I am nominating all redirects where "unusual" characters (quotes, diacritics, accents, ...) are replaced by "\x" (plus further numbers and letters). It has become clear (at least to most editors involved) that the huge number of pageviews these redirects get are not from humans, but are caused by bots or by errors in the pageviewcounts. These redirects serve no purpose, and considering that there are more than 150 of those and more are created each week, it makes sense to ut a stop to these and delete them. Further creations can possibly be speedy deleted as "implausible recent redirects", but a more formal discussion for such an amount of redirects seemed sensible. This discussion is only about the redirects with the "\x" in them, not about any of the other groups discussed at that AN discussion. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: only the following 150 are nominated here, because it is quite a job to find them (no easy list is available, and they don't show up in searches very well, e.g. AWB can't find them apparently); I intend to speedy delete the other, completely similar ones if this discussion ends in delete.
The evidence that these requests don't come from humans seems to consist of:
The article mojibake explains how mangling of text can happen. It is a commonplace when using a computer to work with text.
I looked at the earliest available WP:TOPRED, from 2 February 2013. It has several "\x" entries. I don't know why the 12 May report has none, but the phenomenon did not begin in June.
I downloaded the hourly page-view logs for 18 November and the first hour of 19 November. Searching for "\x" requests to the English Wikipedia, I found (zcat *gz | grep ^en\ | grep "\\\\x" | cut -f2 -d\ | sort -u | wc -l
) 114,244 unique page names containing "\x" had been requested. Most of them got one request in any given hour.
Many of the redirects in this nomination were created in response to WP:TOPRED, which lists nonexistent pages which receive many requests. While it's possible for a malicious or malfunctioning bot to generate numerous requests, it's plausible that many people are interested in topics such as the 2013 French Open, Beyoncé Knowles, Weird Al Yankovic, or the copyright symbol. The fact that stats.grok.se ignores these requests doesn't mean they're harmful; it's just an error in the programming of that site. If most of the requests for an article use a supported encoding rather than the "\x" encoding, the article is unlikely to appear on the TOPRED list. Hence there's a bias toward creating redirects to articles which are requested with the "\x" encoding more often than with a supported encoding.
As suggested in June [4] if the Mediawiki software would transform "\x" to "%" there would be no need for these redirects. In the meantime, they serve to make it easier to reach the most-requested articles, a tiny proportion (on the order of 0.1%) of the pages that are requested this way. This week's TOPRED list has 20 "\x" entries; that number is tiny compared to 114,424. These are not being created en masse. Requests that have been happening at least since February and possibly much longer, and which happen over 100,000 times a day, are not "improbable".
While the exact software that causes them is unknown, I see no solid evidence that requests containing "\x", or the requests for these particular pages, are by bots or crawlers, let alone harmful or malfunctioning bots or crawlers. — rybec 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just notified BDD, Nabla, Sun Creator, Trivialist, and Anthony Appleyard of this deletion discussion. — rybec 22:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at more log files and found
commons.m File:\x22_Delphinidae,_PenÃnsula_Yucatan,_Mexico_\x22_.jpg 1 9611
)zcat pagecounts-2013111*gz | grep "\\\\x" | wc -l
)The logs are hourly: the presence of a line in the logs means there was at least one request for a particular page over the course of that hour.
From the above, I see that this traffic goes back at least as far as 2011, but has increasted drastically since 2011. That makes old versions of Internet Explorer unlikely as the source of it. I had invited someone from the WMF analytics team to look at the AN discussion, but didn't see a comment from him. — rybec 00:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
These redirects would become inaccessible; the Wikimedia software would decode the URLs automatically as it does now when people request Robinson_Canó (Robinson_Can%C3%B3) when they want the Robinson_Canó article. Robinson_Can\xC3\xB3 would be decoded in the same way. The page view logs would continue to have separate entries for the three different encodings. — rybec 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just notified some more editors who contributed redirects with "\x" in the title, namely:
Could this be left open a little longer, to allow them to reply? — rybec 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The second item on Fram's list is \xC2\xA9, a redirect to the copyright symbol created by me. Waldir made \xB0, a redirect to the degree symbol. Fram stated "I am nominating all redirects where "unusual" characters (quotes, diacritics, accents, ...) are replaced by "\x" (plus further numbers and letters). [...] Note: only the following 150 are nominated here, because it is quite a job to find them (no easy list is available, and they don't show up in searches very well, e.g. AWB can't find them apparently); I intend to speedy delete the other, completely similar ones if this discussion ends in delete." That he meant to include \xC2\xA9 was apparent; that he intended to preserve \xB0 was not "B0" looks like further numbers and letters to me, just as surely as "C2A9". What, pray tell, is the essential difference between the escape sequences for the copyright and degree sybmols? I've provided a list of all pages which contained "\x" in their title, as of 23 December. Perhaps Fram would care to peruse it and provide the list of those--if indeed there are any besides Waldir's--which he wants kept? Or alternatively, the specific list of those he wishes deleted.
Fram did indeed inform several people of the AN discussion, but he didn't leave a link there when starting this new discussion. I found out about this RfD through my watch-list. Now Fram tells me that improperly notifying people is "vote-stacking"...okay, if we were voting. We're not, so how is Waldir's comment invalid? Is there an actual rebuttal to it besides the assertion that Waldir should not have been notified? — rybec 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the nominations of \xC2\xA9 and \xC3\x86, and want to make clear that this nomination/precedent is not intended to include redirects from Hex codes to single symbols or characters, which are distinct from the main issue this RfD is about, which are "normal" text with some incorrectly rendered characters / diacritics / ... included. I would again like to apologize to Rybec for my comments above, I was wrong. Fram ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no such name as Fairy Guy to be premiering in the Season 12 of Family Guy, or in the future seasons, as it was just created because they announced it on Comic Con, but was never official. I recommend that the redirected article should be removed. Blurred Lines 11:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No one uses "Nokia 800", you always specify the "Lumia" keyword. More over no other pages use this title. So better delete the redirect page. Compfreak7 ( talk) 10:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:R#DELETE #10. No mention of the term on redirected article. Musdan77 ( talk) 06:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:R#DELETE #10. No mention of the term on redirected article. Musdan77 ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2013.
Are "last name, first name" redirects common on Wikipedia?, because even if Hoblit is not a common name on this site, a disambiguation page should suffice to help with any confusion with this name. The only other another article with this name is Hoblit House. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This was originally redirected to Homophobia#Heterophobia, but after a discussion about whether to split it to a separate article, was redirected to the Wiktionary site. The redirect is misleading as it suggests that there's no relevant encyclopedia content, when there is, at Homophobia#Heterophobia, which mentions this ambiguity and also gives context and preferred terms, more than what a dictionary definition provides; this section is a better target for the redirect. Other similar terms ( hetrophobia, heterophobic, heterophobe) already redirect to it. The other non-misleading option would be a disambiguation page, but I can't find another article to link to. Peter James ( talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
Toc limit|3}}
means it doesn't appear in the table of contents.
Peter James (
talk)
23:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The term does seem to have some currency: a Google News search turns up three recent pieces that mention it [1] [2] [3]. — rybec 00:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Following up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Mass creation of very improbable redirects, I am nominating all redirects where "unusual" characters (quotes, diacritics, accents, ...) are replaced by "\x" (plus further numbers and letters). It has become clear (at least to most editors involved) that the huge number of pageviews these redirects get are not from humans, but are caused by bots or by errors in the pageviewcounts. These redirects serve no purpose, and considering that there are more than 150 of those and more are created each week, it makes sense to ut a stop to these and delete them. Further creations can possibly be speedy deleted as "implausible recent redirects", but a more formal discussion for such an amount of redirects seemed sensible. This discussion is only about the redirects with the "\x" in them, not about any of the other groups discussed at that AN discussion. Fram ( talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Note: only the following 150 are nominated here, because it is quite a job to find them (no easy list is available, and they don't show up in searches very well, e.g. AWB can't find them apparently); I intend to speedy delete the other, completely similar ones if this discussion ends in delete.
The evidence that these requests don't come from humans seems to consist of:
The article mojibake explains how mangling of text can happen. It is a commonplace when using a computer to work with text.
I looked at the earliest available WP:TOPRED, from 2 February 2013. It has several "\x" entries. I don't know why the 12 May report has none, but the phenomenon did not begin in June.
I downloaded the hourly page-view logs for 18 November and the first hour of 19 November. Searching for "\x" requests to the English Wikipedia, I found (zcat *gz | grep ^en\ | grep "\\\\x" | cut -f2 -d\ | sort -u | wc -l
) 114,244 unique page names containing "\x" had been requested. Most of them got one request in any given hour.
Many of the redirects in this nomination were created in response to WP:TOPRED, which lists nonexistent pages which receive many requests. While it's possible for a malicious or malfunctioning bot to generate numerous requests, it's plausible that many people are interested in topics such as the 2013 French Open, Beyoncé Knowles, Weird Al Yankovic, or the copyright symbol. The fact that stats.grok.se ignores these requests doesn't mean they're harmful; it's just an error in the programming of that site. If most of the requests for an article use a supported encoding rather than the "\x" encoding, the article is unlikely to appear on the TOPRED list. Hence there's a bias toward creating redirects to articles which are requested with the "\x" encoding more often than with a supported encoding.
As suggested in June [4] if the Mediawiki software would transform "\x" to "%" there would be no need for these redirects. In the meantime, they serve to make it easier to reach the most-requested articles, a tiny proportion (on the order of 0.1%) of the pages that are requested this way. This week's TOPRED list has 20 "\x" entries; that number is tiny compared to 114,424. These are not being created en masse. Requests that have been happening at least since February and possibly much longer, and which happen over 100,000 times a day, are not "improbable".
While the exact software that causes them is unknown, I see no solid evidence that requests containing "\x", or the requests for these particular pages, are by bots or crawlers, let alone harmful or malfunctioning bots or crawlers. — rybec 21:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just notified BDD, Nabla, Sun Creator, Trivialist, and Anthony Appleyard of this deletion discussion. — rybec 22:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at more log files and found
commons.m File:\x22_Delphinidae,_PenÃnsula_Yucatan,_Mexico_\x22_.jpg 1 9611
)zcat pagecounts-2013111*gz | grep "\\\\x" | wc -l
)The logs are hourly: the presence of a line in the logs means there was at least one request for a particular page over the course of that hour.
From the above, I see that this traffic goes back at least as far as 2011, but has increasted drastically since 2011. That makes old versions of Internet Explorer unlikely as the source of it. I had invited someone from the WMF analytics team to look at the AN discussion, but didn't see a comment from him. — rybec 00:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
These redirects would become inaccessible; the Wikimedia software would decode the URLs automatically as it does now when people request Robinson_Canó (Robinson_Can%C3%B3) when they want the Robinson_Canó article. Robinson_Can\xC3\xB3 would be decoded in the same way. The page view logs would continue to have separate entries for the three different encodings. — rybec 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just notified some more editors who contributed redirects with "\x" in the title, namely:
Could this be left open a little longer, to allow them to reply? — rybec 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The second item on Fram's list is \xC2\xA9, a redirect to the copyright symbol created by me. Waldir made \xB0, a redirect to the degree symbol. Fram stated "I am nominating all redirects where "unusual" characters (quotes, diacritics, accents, ...) are replaced by "\x" (plus further numbers and letters). [...] Note: only the following 150 are nominated here, because it is quite a job to find them (no easy list is available, and they don't show up in searches very well, e.g. AWB can't find them apparently); I intend to speedy delete the other, completely similar ones if this discussion ends in delete." That he meant to include \xC2\xA9 was apparent; that he intended to preserve \xB0 was not "B0" looks like further numbers and letters to me, just as surely as "C2A9". What, pray tell, is the essential difference between the escape sequences for the copyright and degree sybmols? I've provided a list of all pages which contained "\x" in their title, as of 23 December. Perhaps Fram would care to peruse it and provide the list of those--if indeed there are any besides Waldir's--which he wants kept? Or alternatively, the specific list of those he wishes deleted.
Fram did indeed inform several people of the AN discussion, but he didn't leave a link there when starting this new discussion. I found out about this RfD through my watch-list. Now Fram tells me that improperly notifying people is "vote-stacking"...okay, if we were voting. We're not, so how is Waldir's comment invalid? Is there an actual rebuttal to it besides the assertion that Waldir should not have been notified? — rybec 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the nominations of \xC2\xA9 and \xC3\x86, and want to make clear that this nomination/precedent is not intended to include redirects from Hex codes to single symbols or characters, which are distinct from the main issue this RfD is about, which are "normal" text with some incorrectly rendered characters / diacritics / ... included. I would again like to apologize to Rybec for my comments above, I was wrong. Fram ( talk) 12:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no such name as Fairy Guy to be premiering in the Season 12 of Family Guy, or in the future seasons, as it was just created because they announced it on Comic Con, but was never official. I recommend that the redirected article should be removed. Blurred Lines 11:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No one uses "Nokia 800", you always specify the "Lumia" keyword. More over no other pages use this title. So better delete the redirect page. Compfreak7 ( talk) 10:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:R#DELETE #10. No mention of the term on redirected article. Musdan77 ( talk) 06:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:R#DELETE #10. No mention of the term on redirected article. Musdan77 ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)