Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shankarsivarajan (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 4 February 2024 (→‎January 6 hostage crisis: Edited my comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 4

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

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 [1]. 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=1203370362"