Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 5

December 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 5, 2021.

Biosciences (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 13#Biosciences (disambiguation)

Great Britain (кingdom)

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 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain (кingdom) → Kingdom of Great Britain (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete for having a stray Cyrillic letter. Dissident (Talk) 17:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The к instead K makes it an incredibly implausible search term. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Snood. The redirect might fall afoul of WP:RFOREIGN as well, even though the letters sound pretty much aliкe, as I doubt people will search for the target with a mixture of the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, much less in the disambiguator. Regards, SONIC678 20:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Implausible search term. We are an English-language wiki, after all. Aasim (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (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.

Wide Waters

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 00:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Waters → Erie Canal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search doesn't suggest any connection. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is probably a reference to Wide Waters/Widewater Canal Park but that's likely not notable enough for an article on its own and it's not mentioned in the Erie Canal article. There are some mentions of it as "Widewaters" in news articles, but it does not seem like a particularly notable portion of the Erie Canal and as it's not currently in the article there's no logic in retargeting there. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:25, 5 December 2021 (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.

Dellafuente

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Dellafuente

Lupae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Lupae

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne

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 no consensus. On one hand, it's harmless and may be used in old links. On the other hand, it's implausible as a search term. Neither side won the day. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne → Wedding anthem for Princess Anne (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Dubious redirect, extremely unlikely to be used by actual readers (who are likely to search for either the incipit or the more descriptive title), which was used only as a dubious way of not putting a piped link in the list of compositions by the composer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless {{R from move}}, WP:RFD#KEEP#4 seems to apply. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is no incoming link (I've cleaned up what little there was, and if someone somehow willingly linked to this in an edit summary (I'd be surprised), they still wouldn't have difficulty actually finding the thing, ...) and this is otherwise not a useful redirect, as it is quite unlikely someone would link to the target article using this, and as a search term it is clearly useless as readers are likely to come upon the actual thing they're looking for using a much shorter query, and even if somehow they do search for something like it (ex. here) the correct article is already the very first thing on top... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless, and deleting it would break the links in years of old versions of the articles you just fixed for too little gain. —Kusma (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it would break the links in years of old versions of the articles" actually, it wouldn't, as the only significant use of this was in the navbox footer template (and of course, even when viewing an old version of an article, you see the current version of the template....). Outside of this idiosyncratic use, I only found two isolated examples ([1]; [2]). Red links in old versions of articles are not really a problem (for one, the kind of people looking at that would surely know how to find the correct article; doubly so since it is the first thing that would appear on top of their search anyway) Redirects might be cheap, but this one is just so fundamentally useless (and in addition might give bad ideas for creating other similar ones) that there's no point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an R from move, specifically this was the original title of the article. A7V2 (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was moved from it's original title within 6 days of being created ([3]). There's nothing to be broken, and it's otherwise useless as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with RandomCanadian. This is clearly a case where keeping a redir after a move serves no actual purpose. This is just pointless clutter. Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, old links sure do exist... — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: That is surely because it was used in the Handel navbox template (which is now corrected, so even in old versions of articles there shouldn't be a problem). I'll re-iterate that the article was at this original title for a grand total of only 6 days... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, should've read further through the RfD. So it's a used alternative name then? Good to know. And it is used. Why else would the creator create it? [4] [5]. Additionally, those pageviews may not all be from the navbox; 6 days is enough time for old external links to accrue, so I'd be wary of deleting it. Anyhow, I'm not sure how needlessly changing links, and creating an RfD serves to eliminate "clutter". If anything, it creates it. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "used alternative name". It's a composite of the incipit (i.e. Psalm 118:24) and of the usual designation for this (both of which can be used individually, but I have never seen them together in this fashion), which was apparently only used by the creator of this back in 2014 (and which was not updated in the template when the article was moved). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a used alternative name, as the links show. The fact that it isn't especially common in format or usage does not change that. It isn't immediately clear anyhow that it is two phases combined, and it is entirely reasonable that upon seeing it, the reader would search it up and be helped by this redirect to find their way to the article. I don't see why we should inconvenience those readers. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It isn't immediately clear" - "This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne"... I've told you where the usage comes from: it's not the search engine, it was merely usage in a (one!) template... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small word sandwiched between more small words. The purpose of so many redirects is to factor in for people's misnomers. I don't see how this one is different. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Desperately implausible search term, and I agree that it muddies the waters concerning the Biblical verse. "Inconveniencing the readers?" What readers? Ravenswing 02:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another heated discussion with no clear outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Should have never existed, and will never be used. Aza24 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Certainly not wrong, harmless, gets around 10 pageviews a month. What's the value in deletion? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2021 (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.

10.9mm

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 05:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10.9mm → .44 Magnum (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too specific a target, as this is also the bullet diameter of the .44 Special and .44 Russian. Could be retargeted to .44 or 10 mm caliber, but these include entries with different bullet sizes. Given that this measurement could refer to things besides bullet diameter, and the correct 10.9 mm doesn't exist, I favor deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repoint to 11 mm caliber, and convert .44 into a redirect to 11 mm caliber. They are listed at 11mm, and 10.9 is about 11mm, since engineering tolerances are not that tight. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. This is not 10.9 mm caliber. (By the way: "engineering tolerances are not that tight"? In ammunition!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhh. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:03, 5 December 2021 (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.

10 gauge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#10 gauge

45 caliber

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 all to 11 mm caliber. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

45 caliber → .45 ACP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Forty-five caliber → .45 ACP (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

.45 caliber → 11 mm caliber (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

.45 Caliber → 11 mm caliber (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These should all probably target the same place. Should they be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs for .45 ACP, or target the list page? If targeting .45 ACP, the hatnote should be edited to include a link to the 11 mm caliber list. Another common meaning is .45 Colt, which is currently a hatnote. There is the Colt 45 page that disambiguates between these two meanings, so retargeting there could also be considered (I have added a "See also" to the 11 mm page there). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that they all target 11 mm caliber, since multiple cartridges have .45 in the name. There's no reason to focus on just one as a redirect target. Hellbus (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .45 ACP is called ".45 ACP", retarget to 11mm per Hellbus -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 3 suggested targets. Both comments so far were unclear to me. IP 65's unquoted vs quoted comment, as well as Hellbus' suggestion to retarget all to 11 mm, and seemingly contradicting it by saying that we need not look at a single target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to 11 mm caliber (which is what I think others really mean), consistent with .45. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to 11 mm caliber, makes sense to me. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 14:54, 7 December 2021 (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.

SetTheory/OldVersion

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 Wrong venue. A request for a history merge should be made at WP:RFHM. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SetTheory/OldVersion → Set theory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It seems that we should merge the redirect target with the history of the page. Q28 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2021 (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.