Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2017.

Chhh[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. I presume it's supposed to be an onomatopoeia for the sound one's back makes when getting a chiropractic adjustment. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this redirect targets where it targets. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. CHHH may refer to Methyl [1], but not to any of the other things listed on the dab page CH3. – Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no connection between the redirect and the target. Pinging @EJBH and Ocaasi: who queried the redirect on the target talk page in 2010. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable possibilities. There's Community Home Health and Hospice, Methyl (although CH3 is the preferred or common notation), Childen's House at Holly Hill Montessori school, China Health Holding (stock ticker CHHH). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Binibining Pilipinas Globe and others[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 24#Binibining Pilipinas Globe and others

How much of the time do snare traps work[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No information at target article for this, other than that the trap sometimes captures animals that aren't intended, but they still "work". Still rather vague. There also isn't any table to compare types of traps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have a much higher view of the utility of question redirects than many people here, but someone searching for this will not find the answer at the target article, nor (as best I can tell) anywhere else on Wikipedia. I expect the answer actually has many variables, such as what model of trap is being used, whehter you set it up correctly, where it is placed, what you are attempting to catch and whether you regard catching the wrong thing as "working" or not. If my assumption in this regard is correct then I don't think Wikipedia will ever be able to answer such a general question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user could type in "snare trap effectiveness" if they wanted the syntax to be more Wikipedia-like. But there's still little information to answer the question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jasmin (website)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiveJasmin was moved to "Jasmine" however their website as well as everything else still points to LiveJasmine so I believe the article was probably moved in error, As LJ has never gone by "Jasmine" - "Jasmine (website)" could obviously refer to anything so I'm requesting deletion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)(updated 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Changing to delete as there isn't a Java (website) either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete, don't retarget. None of the entries on the Jasmine, Jasmin or Yasmin (disambiguation) disambigs refer to a website other than LiveJasmin. I don't have an opinion about whether this is a useful search term for that target - if it is then it should be kept (regardless of whether it's the official name or not), if it isn't then it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no point in keeping such a general redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Manned mission[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Merged" to target in 2010, but added text was immediately reverted, and no text remained. No obvious relevance at the present time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree that this could refer to a number of activities aside from spaceflight, but after doing a little research, I found that an overwhelming majority of sources use this term in the context of human spaceflight. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear that this term is used to referred to spaceflight. The only other use I can think of is deep-sea exploration, for which a hatnote can be added. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Propagation of errors resulting from algebraic manipulations[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This seems to me like a rather unlikely search term, and is somewhat misleading in that the target is not specifically about the propagation of errors resulting from algebraic manipulations, in fact I don't think it has much to do with it at all. I think what this would mean is that if an optimizing compiler reorders expressions which are mathematically identical (because of commutativity, associativity and so on), you can get different results. For example, typically in floating-point arithmetic one is best to add (or subtract) all the small numbers first, because the result is nearer to the ideal, mathematical result than if you try to add (or subtract) a really small number and a really big one, even though mathematically the numbers are of infinite precision and should give you the same result. We might have a better target, then, but I can't find it. This is not an R to section. Three hits in ninety days, no incoming links beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, to take a floating representation with two digits of precision when we are adding 0.004 to 0.99 three times:
0.99 + 0.004 = 0.99 + 0.00 = 0.99 (the "error" of -0.004 from the ideal value of 0.994 then propagates to the next calculation...)
0.99 + 0.004 = 0.99 + 0.00 = 0.99 (the "error" propagates again...)
0.99 + 0.004 = 0.99 + 0.00 = 0.99 (the cumulative "error" is now -0.012, i.e. the difference of 0 (perfect) and 0.012)
whereas if we add together the three small numbers first:
0.004 + 0.004 = 0.008 ("error" is 0, i.e. perfect)
0.008 + 0.004 = 0.012 ("error" is still 0)
0.99 + 0.012 = 1.00 ("error" is -0.002, better than the "error" of -0.012 that we had before)
I can make an article to describe this, it shouldn't be too hard to find RS, but we might already have one that discusses this specifically. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Common subexpression elimination might be a place to add this content (tidied up, of course). It has a section "Common_subexpression_elimination#Advantages" but not one on disadvantages, and floating-point error propagation is a clear disadvantage if the compiler performs this kind of manipulation on subexpressions, i.e. that if "0.99 + ( 0.004 * 3 )" is replaced by "0.99 + 0.004 + 0.004 + 0.004" because a multiply instruction is much slower than an add instruction, then hilarity ensues. There is probably a topic on this but I haven't found it yet. That's perhaps not a good target either, and strength reduction, as in my example, is probably the nearest but doesn't mention problems with precision because it's mostly concerned with trivial arithmetic on the natural numbers for indexing an array. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've left messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Talk:Propagation of uncertainty asking for those with subject knowledge to comment here. I don't understand it anywhere near enough to have an informed opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the possibility of reinstatement either as an article rather than a redirect or as a redirect with a different and appropriate target. The target article appears to be about quantification of uncertainty by means of probabilities, where uncertainty results from limits on numerical precision. That's quite a different topic from that described in the name of the redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I understand, the effect related to optimizing compiler is usually not called propagation of errors. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brown (Batman)[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 retarget to Stephanie Brown (comics) since there is not consensus to delete this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. There is no character "Brown" on the target page; in fact, the word "brown" doesn't appear on the entire page. Perhaps there was an actor whose last name was Brown who once played a minor henchman in this TV series? Even if that's the case, this redirect is currently obsolete. Moreover, it's annoying, because "Brown" is a sufficiently common search term, and every time someone types "Brown" followed by an open parenthesis, this option shows up. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Nonetheless, I think that Brown (Batman) should be deleted, not redirected at Stephanie Brown. After all, we don't have redirects such as Olsen (Superman) or Pennyworth (Batman) or Granger (Harry Potter), even though those characters are much more famous than Stephanie Brown -- because that's simply not standard Wikipedia redirect syntax. Such redirects would be appropriate only in cases where there's reason to believe our readers will be looking up these characters by their last names. And that doesn't apply here, for none of the characters in the Batman mythos referred to Stephanie Brown by her last name. So her page can be found using the standard Wikipedia redirects: Brown (disambiguation) → List of people with surname Brown → Stephanie Brown (disambiguation) → Stephanie Brown (comics). — Lawrence King (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In some media characters are known by family names, especially in Japanese media. For example in the English manga "Katsuya Jonouchi" of Yu-Gi-Oh! is almost always called by his last name Jonouchi, not by his first name Katsuya WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. But I think we are losing sight of the main point.
There is a complex policy for redirects pointing to things documented on Wikipedia. As you point out, sometimes a redirect based on the last name is appropriate. But Mr. Brown is not documented on Wikipedia at all. Brown was a background character in two episodes of the Batman TV series in the 1960s [2] [3]. He is so minor that he not only has no article, but isn't even mentioned in the comprehensive List of Batman television series characters article. Therefore, the redirect page Brown (Batman) should be deleted, because there is nothing for it to point to.
If anyone believes this redirect should not be deleted, can you specify what article you would like it to redirect to? — Lawrence King (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Stephanie Brown (comics). It's not implausible that someone might only remember a particular character's last name and want to search via the franchise. Grammatically, it's not much different from using (DC comics) or (Marvel comics) as parenthetical disambiguators). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For newcomers to this discussion, let me explain why I proposed this redirect be deleted. The redirect Brown (Batman) was originally created because there was a minor henchman named "Brown" who appeared in two episodes of the Batman 1960s TV show. But since that minor henchman is never mentioned in any Wikipedia page, there should be no redirect, because there's nothing to redirect to. The discussion above then changed direction, as various editors tried to locate someone else named "Brown" who has some connection to Batman, which would allow this redirect to be pointed at them instead. CoffeeWithMarkets and Patar knight suggested that it could redirect to Stephanie Brown (comics). My argument against this proposal is that, while Wikipedia does have some redirects of the format LastNameOfCharacter (NameOfFranchise), it doesn't have redirects of the format LastNameOfCharacter (NameOfOtherCharacterTheyHappenToKnow). That's why, while Hermione Granger is a very famous friend of Harry Potter, and Jimmy Olsen is a very famous friend of Superman, there are no Olsen (Superman) or Granger (Harry Potter) redirects. So the page Brown (Batman) should be deleted, becuase its original target in the Batman TV show isn't documented here, and because while Stephanie Brown might deserve a Brown (DC Comics) redirect, a Brown (Batman) redirect to her would be silly. — Lawrence King (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire article covering various media in the Batman franchise (Batman franchise media), so it's unfair to say that the (Batman) parenthetical disambiguator is merely the name of a character they happen to know. I would argue that all of your redlinks should be created. It's not unreasonable for someone to remember the last name of a character and the franchise they appear in, but not their full name, especially for younger characters who interact with older characters in positions of authority (e.g. Perry White calling Jimmy Olsen "Olsen", or a Hogwars professor calling Herminoe "Miss Granger"). Relying on the suggested path above starting from Brown (disambiguation) is of no use if you don't remember the first name of the character. A specific franchise redirect is arguably more useful, because while Stephanie Brown is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Brown in the Batman franchise, it might be less clear with the myriad of other franchises owned by DC Comics. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and created the two redlinks that were used as examples. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bahamas real estate[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of real estate in target Peter Rehse (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sounds like advertising to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was an article, that was tagged for notability and prodded by Abductive in 2010 with the reason "This "article" is just a spam magnet with no encyclopedic information and some outright lies. None of the entities spamming up this page are notable, and the overall concept of real estate in the Bahamas is not treated by the article, nor is there a compelling need for an article stating that Bahamas Real Estate consists of real estate in the Bahamas.". About 2½ days later it was redirected by B.Wind. Given that history I do not think that restoring the article for discussion would be a good idea (I would have endorsed the PROD if I'd seen it). If this is deleted the link at Damianos Sotheby's International Realty should be removed to discourage recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added the alternatively capitalised Bahamas Real Estate to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_April_16&oldid=1088108171"