Talk:TCP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Red links

With respect to the guy who removed all the red links; I hate pages bloated with entries representing fancruft and/or (more likely "and") unlikely search terms as much as the next guy. However, I believe they were overzealous in removing all red links. See the MoS on the subject of redlinks within disambigs.

It's our aim to show all the entries that (a) Anyone could *reasonably* expect when searching for a term and (b) That could support an article entry (or at least notable subsection).

The "it's a redlink, remove it" rule works when deciding whether to give the benefit of the doubt to fancruft and dubious entries. If it's not got an article *and* it looks like an unlikely search term.... bye bye. But not all redlinks are bad.

Personally, I consider the blue-linked Top Cow Productions a more dubious entry than a lot of the red ones...

Fourohfour 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I read the MoS section you cited. It says, Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. What makes you think an article could be written, for example, on Trajectory Change Point. I happen to be a commercial pilot and flight instructor, and am thus quite familiar with Air Traffic Control jargon. I've never heard the term. I just checked the Pilot-Controller Glossary and don't see it listed there. I did find some other references in google to some air traffic procedures design documents, but that's digging pretty deep into esoterica. It seems unlikely to me that anybody could write an encyclopedia article about that which was anything more than a dictdef. I left the Top Cow Productions entry because the first sentence of that article starts Top Cow Productions (TCP); while I know nothing about the topic, I took that to imply that people familiar in the field commonly use TCP to refer to the company. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain.

As I said, redlinks are useful evidence when deciding whether to give already questionable entries the benefit of the doubt or not. However, (as the MoS states) that an entry is redlinked isn't in itself sufficient justification for its removal.

I wasn't the person who added Trajectory Change Point, just the one who stopped it being removed, and there *is* a difference.

Your sole reason (going by the edit summary) for the removed entries was that they were redlinked. Although I couldn't say for sure if they belonged or not, they weren't obviously dubious, so this wasn't sufficient justification for their removal.

Now that I've read your explanation here, I accept your reasoning, but this wasn't clear at the time.

As for Top Cow Productions... I wasn't having a go at you for leaving it in, just saying that I thought it was still of more questionable utility than many of the redlinks. Fourohfour 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)