Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2024.

Aurel Urzicǎ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Aurel Urzicǎ

Data-driven (disambiguation)[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. Jay 💬 07:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a redirect to a disambiguation page, but one to a section of an article that lists types of things that are "data-driven". I suggest deletion, but I'd be open to other thoughts. Duckmather (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per G14, especially after the retarget from Data-driven to the list which now consists of only partial title matches. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not eligible for speedy deletion as the target clearly performs a "disambiguation like function". Whether it's a good disambig or a good target for this redirect are not relevant to G14. Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G14 provided examples for that, i.e. list or set index articles. A bunch of bullet points as a "see also" located in the bottom 10% of a general "Data" page I didn't view to meet that criteria, but I suppose if the bulleted PTMs at the end is considered a valid "list" for "Data-driven" then perhaps not G14. (What I alternatively rationalized in my head was "there are no pages that go by the name of 'data-driven' where a hypothetical disambiguation would be appropriate, even on a different page, even in a different function".) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target is unambiguously a list of things with similar titles, which is clearly a disambiguation-like function (set indexes and lists are examples of such, not an exhaustive list). Whether the disambiguation is relevant and/or appropriate and whether the entries are valid disambiguation entries is completely irrelevant to speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These entries were merged from a previous DAB that used to exist up until July 2023. While respectable, it's a pretty jarring shift in tone and topic, and in my eyes doesn't really fit in the general organization for Data. As it's no longer a standalone DAB, it now reads as a completely unreferenced tangent section that gives undue weight over the rest of the data topics. It'd be better to link all 7 of these in the actual "See Also" section, and delete the "Driven" cutaway, as well as this redir. This is more of a point about the content though, ah well. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this does somewhat serve as a disambiguation for this term. That said, I agree with Utopes that that section should likely be removed, in which case I would support deletion, and perhaps Data-driven and Data driven could be deleted as well. A7V2 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing !vote, see below. A7V2 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I've removed the cutaway-listing about the neologism, and converted the valid blue links into the "See Also" section on the page. The decision to reinclude this can be discussed on the talk page of the Data article if desired, I'd think, which I've also notified. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: I've reverted your edit for now. A lot of things are called "data-driven", even if their data-driven-ness is questionable, so it seems like we should have some content about this concept, even if only a little. Perhaps we'd want to bundle the base title Data-driven into this discussion as well. Duckmather (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duckmather: This is a topic to be discussed on Talk:Data, as this change is directly about the content of the article. Yesterday I removed an unreferenced section that was out of place at the target page, in a way that preserved all the blue links for navigation. As you've now re-added uncited information about a neologism (to a page where it is never mentioned), please keep in mind that the WP:BURDEN is on you to find verification for every bullet point that's been added. If this is just about having content for "data-driven", there's a very handy Wikt:data-driven page that can be soft-redirected to. But in the meantime I'm contesting the re-addition of this uncited content; if you'd like, we can continue this at the talk page as that would be a better place to get information from concerned editors. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

April 4, 1968[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 Refine to April 1968#April 4, 1968 (Thursday). Jay 💬 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., to be WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with September 11, 2001 to September 11 attacks, April 19, 1995 to Oklahoma City Bombing, July 4, 1776 to Independence Day, December 7, 1941 to Attack on Pearl Harbor, and November 22, 1963 to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or weak delete. I am not sure that the date is burned into people's minds to the degree that the other examples are, particularly for English speakers who may be outside the US. I think it makes more sense to keep it pointing as it is... or to perhaps remove it entirely. However, I don't feel strongly on this one. - Dyork (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to April 1968#April 4, 1968 (Thursday) to avoid potential systematic bias issues. While this date is very significant to users in the U.S., the assassination may not carry the same weight across the world. - Eureka Lott

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dedrick owens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Dedrick owens

Age of AI[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 AI era. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely such a thing as an "age of AI" (I think we're living in one right now!), but I don't know where we've discussed it. It used to be an article which defined the term as A newly proposed technological time period to describe the technological shift caused by the widespread adoption of AI. It was nominated for speedy deletion under A1, but I saved it by redirecting it here. But I don't know what to do with this page now, so to RfD I go. Presumably this page would have to be retargeted somewhere. Duckmather (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to AI era. This appears to fit the original definition.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Maxeto0910. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Duckmather, Dyork, and Steel1943: What do you think of Maxeto0910's suggestion? Jay 💬 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support it. Retarget to AI era (though AI boom, which focuses on the more recent era, could also be a plausible target). Duckmather (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AI boom is not an era, but a short-term period of rapid progress in generative AI which is part of the AI era and started in the late 2010s or early 2020s, depending on the definition. Thus, AI era, which is about the long-term social and economic implications caused by the growing use of advanced AI in general, definitely better suits the redirect.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Encydra[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. Jay 💬 22:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ency(clopedia)+dra(matica). This is the username of someone possibly associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica: User:Encydra, User:Encydra2. That's the only relevant connection. Doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia. Created by a particular vandal. Rubbish redirect. —Alalch E. 22:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

M. Porcius Cato[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 Marcus Porcius Cato. ✗plicit 12:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger are both about as well known as each other, and I don't think the elder Cato is more well known by his full name than the younger. I think this should be redirected to Porcia gens#Porcii Catones. ★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC) I also think the same should be done for Marcus Cato and M. Porcius Cato.★Trekker (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Marcus Cato and M. Porcius Cato, and since it isn't entirely clear where they should target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all pages should link to Marcus Porcius Cato (disambiguation). T8612 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Beach replemishment[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. Jay 💬 17:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word is spelled "replenishment" with an "n" (not two "m"'s). There are no uses of this redirect. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Viennoise[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Viennoise

AEW Women's Tag Team Championship[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. ✗plicit 14:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither confirmed by All Elite Wrestling nor by official sources. This redirect is just predicting the future (it could happen or there will never ever be such championship). Mann Mann (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Holohoax[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. ✗plicit 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This term isn't mentioned at the target article, I'm not sure how helpful it is to have this redirect on the project as it seems like a tasteless joke. If it is in common use, then I'll reconsider but right now, I'm advocating getting rid of this. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Terrorism and War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Terrorism and War

P:HVNY/DYK[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 P:hvny/dyk, no consensus on P:HVNY/DYK. Keeping the upper case shortcut, for now. wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the contribution to this page was made in 2011, making this subpage more or less abandoned. This page does not seem like it needs to exist as a pseudo-namespace redirect, all while occupying mainspace with the rest of articles. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first redirect has a surprisingly high number of page views, probably because it is linked from Wikipedia:Shortcut as an example. It does no harm at the moment, so keep at least until it has been out of use for a while. —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and the undue weight of page views caused by linking the first redirect as an example. Either pipe the existing link or link it to Wikipedia:Example, and problem solved. Steel1943 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some hours after Kusma's !vote, the nom had replaced the link from WP:Shortcut with a Topical cyclones one. Jay 💬 06:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, specifically I used P:TC/A as another existing example of a subpage, to which the example selection seems interchangeable. Apologies for not mentioning doing so here, but now there's no reason to worry about a replacement at the mentioned page, if deletion happens to be the outcome. Regardless of what comes about, its probably not worth using an out-of-date subpage that's been largely untouched for over a decade, displayed as a "prime example of a Portal shortcut" in the first place. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 02:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete P:hvny/dyk due to the unconventional formatting (which combined with the other arguments presented makes it fruitless). Neutral in regard to P:HVNY/DYK. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_15&oldid=1211185978"