Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2016.

Raphael Schumacher[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 / procedural close. Those calling for a procedural close are correct, in that RfD cannot adequately settle the question of this redirect with the content dispute ongoing. Since the content is currently not at the target article, I'm deleting the redirect. It should not be recreated unless the content dispute is settled in favor of including information about this person. I'm not going to salt the redirect yet, but will do so if there's improper recreation. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list which the person does not even qualify for either. Original page was deleted previously due to not being notable. This redirect is not of any value. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person is in headlines all over the world and they are investigating for possible manslaughter charges. It's a perfectly valid redirect, and will prevent someone from recreating the page when they see it already redirects to info on the event. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is no longer on the page redirected to because he was not notable, as per the top line of the page. We do not list every murder, death or suicide if something notable comes from his death then it would be more value to create the redirect then.WP:BLP1E.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you took him off the page because you've decided he was not notable. The media coverage of his death disagrees with you. There are people on already the list who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. What is your particular obsession with deleting anything about this guy? —МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I was considering making the same redirect. Removal from the list is irresponsible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removal from the list was irresponsible? or your change to the list criteria without discussion? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close - content disputes should be settled on the list's talk page - it's not fair to editors watching the article to make decisions about its content in a separate forum. Decide on whether or not he should be added to the list first, then we can deal with the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entries on a list shouldn't be redirected to the list in this situation; the list ought to contain only notable people, not nonnotables whose names get redirected there. Or if he is notable, delete per the top of WP:REDDEAL; having the redirect retards the creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector; settle the content dispute first. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector. The content dispute must be resolved before any action is taken. Plus, he has received a fair amount of notoriety lately. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:53, 13 February 2016 (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.

Double-direction[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 G6 Neelix housekeeping deleted Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without the "sort" in the title, these redirects are WP:RFD#D5 nonsense; Delete all or just possibly retarget to Bidirectional, a DAB page. None has any internal links, stats below bot noise level. See also #Happy hour sort, below, to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (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.

2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games

Happy hour sort[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 all deleted by User:The Anome. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This purported name for the algorithm was added in 2005 and removed in 2013 as a "hoax". Giving the creator the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he created this redirect merely because its title was in bold and did not already exist. There are no Google Groups hits for the quoted phrase, and only two Google Books hits. Both books are from 2008, were published in India, and at least one may have been self-published, so they may have gotten the name from Wikipedia. In the absence of a supporting reliable source, I suggest deletion. PleaseStand (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as Neelix did not put much thought into a lot of his redirects. Good job tracking down where it came from :) Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unsurprisingly perhaps, there are variants; I added them. See also #Doubledirection, above. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More oddly is whether the target is actually called a cocktail sort. I know I am getting decrepit in the computing game, but I have never heard it called that. I presume it comes from the idea of some ingredients sinking, and others rising, in a cocktail; it would be nice to have a reference to this in the article. I am going to check the Knuth reference, but I only have the first edition (the article refers to the second). Si Trew (talk)
Knuth has çocktail shaker sort, I've added that as RS to the target. My search for just "cocktail sort" leads to no RS; most roads lead back to Wikipedia (fair play to rosettacode.org and Wikia for attributing to Wikipedia). There are some other examples in Java called either ShakerSort, CockTailSort, or CocktailSort, but not from very RS. @Legacypac: You're good at these: a WP neologism? Off-topic cos this is about the target not the R, but I'd be inclined to RM to "cocktail shaker sort" if there is no RS for the shorter name. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an area I know anything about, but it should be at the most common name. Creating an article at WP soon results in dozens to hundreds of sites "confirming" what that phrase means. Seen that lots of times with Neelix invented terms. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2016 (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.

Now i am become death, destroyer of worlds[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 J. Robert Oppenheimer#Trinity, the more famous use of this phrase. Deryck C. 23:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, but it's perhaps more famously used by J. Robert Oppenheimer. These are possibly plausible variants on that quote. The quote is mentioned at both places, so I ask: which place, if any, is more appropriate for these redirect variants? Deletion per WP:XY or as an implausible search term is also possible. I note that the full, grammatically correct version, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is currently red. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a well-known quote, and if you search for any of the versions, you're presumably trying to figure out what it's from. This being a quote, searchers perhaps aren't sure where the punctuation goes or how many words are capitalised; using Special:Search will overcome the latter, and the existing punctuation variants will overcome the former. Redirecting it to a famous reuser, or to its famous use in Trinity (nuclear test), wouldn't be a horrid idea, but neither one is as good as keeping the current target. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we could stub up an article about the phrase, since it is famous -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. We shouldn't circumvent the search engine. I am become Death -> J. Robert Oppenheimer#Trinity, by the way, something I found with the simple expedient of searching for "Now I am become Death the destroyer of worlds" with no punctuation. Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to J. Robert Oppenheimer#Trinity, which, while not the original source of the words, tells how this phrase came to prominence in the English-speaking world. -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as specified. That's what people are probably looking for. But if target to the Bhagavad Gita, the redirect would be Bhagavad Gita#Appraisal, which is where the information is. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this is bugging me, but the grammatically correct version is "Now I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds". Considering that there is no way on Earth the Bhagavad Gita was written in English, the use of am is a mistranslation, since the authors of Bhagavad Gita certainly didn't use what was archaic language in their day, so it should not be translated as archaic English. End rant. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you never seen this usage in late modern English? "I am become X" is not an error in English. It's called poetic diction. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2016 (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.

Tropicana Boulevard[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 as {{R from incorrect name}}. Deryck C. 23:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed to delete. Redirect created from a state highway project list using incorrect street name suffix. Only one inbound link, the aforementioned list, which was corrected upon discovery. LJ ↗ 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. In the UK, at least, the street name "suffix" is important; in Cambridge there is, for example, Park Street, Park Avenue, Park Terrace, Park Road, Parkside and Park Crescent. I believe that in the US and Canada this is less common,, and that the "suffix" is often omitted. Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Googling "Tropicana Boulevard" turns up a number of places using the term to refer to Tropicana Avenue (likely due to confusion with Las Vegas Boulevard). It's incorrect usage, but it's a plausible search term and there doesn't seem to be another notable Tropicana Boulevard that it could be confused with. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 14:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My results must may vary, but my Gsearch gives me mostly places that are at the Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection; perhaps it is better to retarget it there? The website for a Howard Johnson hotel actually says its address is at 165 East Tropicana Boulevard as its address, even though the map shows it is clearly on Eat Tropicana Avenue. Weakening mine; we can tag it as {{R from incorrect name}} or somesuch. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even though it's incorrect, it's a plausible search term. Remember, redirects are cheap. Dough4872 16:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirects are cheap" is neither an argument for keep nor delete; it's "cheap" in terms of computational resources to keep them, delete them or retarget them. Stats are 32 for the last 90 days, and on only one day was greater than 2; below bot noise level. It may, in theory, be a plausible search term, but hardly anyone (if anyone) actually clicks through this redirect.
The real question is, if kept, does it get people to where they are likely to want to go; it's probably not far off, but could it be better? If it didn't exist, what would the search engine suggest? The top results from search in article space are to Tropicana, a DAB; Tropicana Las Vegas; Tropicana – Las Vegas Boulevard intersection (to which Tropicana - Las Vegas Boulevard intersection is an R); Excalibur Hotel and Casino and, in fifth, Rainbow Boulevard (Las Vegas). So, if deleted, the reader gets a choice of quite relevant search results; sometimes that can be better than throwing them into an article – with no hatnote – that doesn't mention "Tropicana Boulevard". If I look for Oxford Road I don't get sent to Oxford Street. WP:RFD#D2 gives the example that 'If "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion.' Just because Google Maps, for example, doesn't care and thinks Tropicana Boulevard is actually a lane to a trailer park in Jensen Beach, Florida (even though that is called NE Boulevard Lane), does not mean we should follow suit.
I realise this is a long reply, but I should hate it to be thought of me that I didn't do WP:BEFORE and perhaps wanted to keep my usual verbosity under control. Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, {{R from incorrect name}}. If a local news station can make this error, it's definitely plausible for Wikipedia. As an aside: it does look like the suffix matters in Las Vegas. There's a "Tropicana Drive," although it's a short residential road. I couldn't find a Tropicana Boulevard though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2016 (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/2016_February_7&oldid=1142587035"