Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 37: Line 37:
*:The second source is ''[[The New York Post]],'' and the third is a reprint of an article from ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' ([https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-donors-harvard-kenneth-griffin-ivy-league-beliefs-e960112e?page=1 here] is a link to the paywalled version). [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] [[User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]] ([[WP:TBACK|Talkback]]) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:The second source is ''[[The New York Post]],'' and the third is a reprint of an article from ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' ([https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-donors-harvard-kenneth-griffin-ivy-league-beliefs-e960112e?page=1 here] is a link to the paywalled version). [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] [[User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]] ([[WP:TBACK|Talkback]]) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*::NY Post is not a reliable source (see [[WP:RSP]]). The third link was to "The Red Line", but I see now it's WSJ. It's an opinion piece in the WSJ, though, which isn't reliable for anything beyond the author's opinions. IMO we should not have such low standards for this sort of thing. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*::NY Post is not a reliable source (see [[WP:RSP]]). The third link was to "The Red Line", but I see now it's WSJ. It's an opinion piece in the WSJ, though, which isn't reliable for anything beyond the author's opinions. IMO we should not have such low standards for this sort of thing. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:I think you're misinterpreting the rule you're citing. [[User:Shankarsivarajan|Shankar Sivarajan]] ([[User talk:Shankarsivarajan|talk]]) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


====0ld English====
====0ld English====

Revision as of 04:56, 5 February 2024

February 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2024.

The Primary Source

Capitalized, this title more likely refers to a publication at Tufts University, which seems to have been defunct since 2013 but has at least a plausible claim to notability [1][2]. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Dixon

"Family member of article subject" for a person not named in the target article at all. Sharon Pratt Kelly does have a daughter named Drew Dixon, but the sum total of her presence in her mother's article amounts to "[Pratt and her husband] have two daughters", without naming either of them. The other problems here are that (a) as a former executive for a record label, Drew Dixon is likely independently notable enough to have her own separate article, rather than just being a redirect, and (b) Drew Dixon is also the nom de porn of a contemporary porn performer who is very much not Sharon Pratt Kelly's daughter -- and while I can't speak with any authority as to whether the porn actor would pass notability criteria for porn actors or not, he's at the very least a plausible enough search term that a reader might think we're saying he's related to Sharon Pratt Kelly (which he's not) if the article fails to contexualize that the topic intended by the redirect is a black female entertainment industry executive rather than a white male porn actor. So because the daughter/executive is almost certainly notable enough for her own article, and the porn guy may or may not be but is absolutely semi-famous enough to create confusion regardless, this probably should be a redlink, an article or a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Ess Ay

Unlikely search term and unhelpful phonetically due to ambiguity with USI. Further we don't need redirects from every combination of letters that might potentially phonetically indicate a target, I suggest deletion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:7D1A:B8FA:44E3:217 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'years in Canada'

Redirect of dubious utility. This results from a 20-year-old page move: the page was originally created at this bad title, and then moved to its current title as soon as a more experienced user noticed it. At the time, the rules in place required even a bad-title redirect to be kept for WP:GFDL attribution reasons if it was where the page had originally been created, but that's long since been deprecated and we now only keep such redirects if they demonstrably have usefulness -- but there's no real reason why a redirect that wraps part of the title in single quotes would actually be useful, so there's no need to hang onto it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd race riots

WP:RNEUTRAL. Nobody refers to them this way. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0ld English

Redirect from implausible typo. That's a zero in the redirect, if you're confused.
We simply don't need millions of zero-to-o misspelling redirects for every title with an o in it, and there's no reason to believe that Old English has any special need for something that no other title with an o in it has. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theroy of Evolution

Redirect from typo. While it's obviously possible that anybody could accidentally type "theroy" instead of "theory" by mistake, we don't need to create preemptive redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody making -- a person could also accidentally type "tehroy", "thoery", "theryo", "theoyr", "hteryo", "rgwiet", or any number of other things, and any number of possible typos in "evolution" too, so there's no need for us to preemptively create thousands of redirects from every possible typo. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Plausible typo" is not grounds for keeping a redirect from a misspelling — there are literally thousands of ways that the title "theory of evolution" could possibly be mistyped, so we can't feasibly create a redirect from every possible misspelling that anybody might ever type by mistake. The bar that would have to be cleared to justify a redirect-from-misspelling is evidence that a significant number of people in the real world actually think that theroy is the actual spelling of the word, not just whether it's possible to imagine that somebody might mistype it that way by accident — because again, there are thousands of different possible ways to mistype any word or title, and there's no value in trying to predict all of them in advance. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree this one is pretty silly, obvious delete
Efbrazil (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minecrat

Redirect from typo. I can find no evidence on the web that any significant number of people actually refer to this game as "Minecrat" on purpose -- I can find a few stray examples of people who mistyped it as Minecrat, but not nearly enough to suggest that there's any significant phenomenon of people spelling it that way to take into account. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knocking one out on your pillow

Redirect from a sexual euphemism with no obvious real-world usage. This was first created with a person's name in the edit summary, so I'm not sure whether the intent was to disparage that person by implying that he jerks his gherkin a lot or to immortalize a neologism that person created, but either way I can't find much evidence on the web that this phrase actually has any significant real-world usage as a euphemism for choking one's chicken, especially given that a pillow isn't even usually needed. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Characters of Adventue Time

Unnecessary redirect with a highly implausible combination of misspellings ("Adventue"), miscapitalizations ("Characters") and a leading "the" where one would not be expected by most readers or editors. This has been around since 2011, so it isn't recent enough that I could legitimately speedy it as an R3, but it's still not necessary at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems completely unnecessary.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 03:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alozno Church

Redirect from typo. There's no discernible evidence that any known sources actually think the subject's name was "Alozno" instead of "Alonzo", so it isn't a real-world usage that we need to concern ourselves with -- it's just a straight-up typo of the sort that absolutely anybody might make if their fingers were typing faster than their brain, and we don't need millions of redirects to preemptively anticipate every possible combination of mistyped letters that any random user might ever produce. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLM insurrection

POV redirect. Apparent attempt to compare BLM protests to the January 6 insurrection? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That comparison is what the people calling it that are attempting to invoke, but it's widely used among highly-placed Republican politicians, and so a likely search term. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 6 hostage crisis

Misleading/POV redirect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see mention of "Jan 6 hostage crisis" in the citations. Could it belong on one of the Trump articles? DN (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. Some section about Trump's comments (or those of other Republican politicians) about "January 6" might be a better redirect target. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLM race riots

WP:RNEUTRAL: …redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion… No significant coverage using this non-neutral term. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attempt at A fork as they can't get to call it a RIOT at the main page, delete as it's not a likely search term. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sociocultural

Is this target really appropriate for such a general word? I am thinking a soft redirect to Wikidata could be better. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAC (operating system)

"DAC" is not mentioned at the target, and without a mention this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism (diving)

delete, it is very unlikely that anyone would search for a term including a general topic between brackets. The page Conservatism (disambiguation) already links to the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no policy or guidance that I know of, it is a matter of common sense. What term would people use to search for, other than "conservatism"? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but need to choose an alternative. The term conservatism is moderately common among divers, referring to a decompression strategy of risk limitation beyond the nominal use of the decompression algorithms. It is a potential encyclopedic topic as Conservatism (diving), which is why I made the redirect with that title. As I mentioned above, there are alternatives but they might be less likely as search terms. However a search for conservatism without a modifier would get the disambiguation page where a link to whatever the title eventually becomes should be available, so not a crisis once a suitable title is chosen. Decompression conservatism would also be a possible search term. There could be a handful of reasonably plausible alternative search terms of roughly equivalent usefulness, but currently I am leaning towards decompression conservatism as the best alternative for an actual subtopic title. Would that be more acceptable?
      Also, there are several other potential topics which are currently redirects with titles including (diving) as a disambiguator. Should I be be looking for alternatives or just leaving out the disambiguator when it is not currently necessary, but I am aware of potential ambiguities that may make disambiguation necessary later? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Shahbanus of Persia

Redundant draft that cannot serve as a plausible redirect. A proper redirect with the same title already exists. I suggest this draft be deleted under the G6 criteria for maintenance. Keivan.fTalk 05:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finders Keepers(film) and etc.

The selection of all Film(film) redirects (from F-Z). All of these articles have had errors in the means of disambiguation, and in this group, all are getting 0 views in accordance with [6]. Additioally, pages that can be fixed, have since been fixed (therefore being excempt and not listed in this nomination). With that out of the way, errors that are "popular" by the massviews, as well as pages with history, are also not being touched in this group. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetoh cat

Delete. No longer mentioned at either target cat article. It is sourceable that such an experimental cat crossbreed was in development at one time, but it is not covered even at List of experimental cat breeds, which is where it would be covered if there eventually turns out to be enough sourcing that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (passing WP:NOTABILITY is unlikely). So, no prejudice toward recreating these redirs later, if it ends up with an entry in the list article. PS: The bare Cheetohs should probably not redirect to Cheetos, since anyone looking for the exact string "Cheetohs" is probably looking for the cats, and it's a trademark (even if not a notable one). We generally should not redirect one trademark to another owned by another party, even if they are similar. Cf. also WP:SMALLDETAILS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If the sourcing on that gets done, it'll probably be by me, but the list article already has unsourced stuff in it, and going through it one by one and either sourcing it enough to keep or removing it as unsourceable is higher priority.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per nom. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_4&oldid=1203578690"