Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5

< November 4

November 6 >

November 5

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

Sporting goods store

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Sporting goods store

Coat of arms of Christmas Island

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 15#Coat of arms of Christmas Island

Judge for Yourself

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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judge for Yourself → Tumbling Doll of Flesh (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Judge for Yourself" is an ambiguous phrase. It is mentioned in the target article as an unsourced alternative title for this pornographic film, but I can't find a source for that (I haven't looked that hard, but it's not in IMDB). Curiously, there was a (now amended) hatnote at Judge for Yourselves! which said :For the 1953–1954 NBC television series starring Fred Allen, see Judge for Yourself. and there are many incoming links clearly not meant for a Japanese porn film. The redirect has apparently only existed since 5Oct 21, which is curious. I'm recommending delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as this alternative title for the film is unsourced anyways. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This redirect is too broad to be useful, assuming that it was actually used. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:54, 10 November 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.

You keep what you kill

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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep what you kill → The Chronicles of Riddick (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Quote not mentioned at target, could confuse readers looking for articles about hunting or fishing policies. I think deletion to allow for search results would be appropriate here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm considering this as a double-redirect via Necromonger. If that were a stand-alone page this could be reasonable. In the current state, I agree with nom about confusion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of the tenents of the Necromongers but I think it's an obscure plot point otherwise. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only someone who remembers a minor plot element in the film would understand this redirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:52, 10 November 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.

General education

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 procedural close - not a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General education → [[:]] (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here would seem to be "general education" in the second sense, as a basic coursework program part of a curriculum. I'd suggest it should be redirected to curriculum with {{r from subtopic}} and {{r with possibilities}}. General Education (capitalized) is a trickier call, but that could maybe go to the film with a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 5 November 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.

Dan Flanders

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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Flanders → Post-production (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No idea why this redirect has been here for the last ten years.

There is a draft in review at Draft:Dan Flanders, which is not ready for article space, but this redirect does not appear to have a use in article space either. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with no prejudice to the draft being moved here if sufficiently improved. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, can always be brought back if the draft is accepted. JIP | Talk 18:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, this redirect makes little sense. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:55, 10 November 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.

Argument from evolution

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 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from evolution → Evidence of common descent (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Has been a redirect to Evidence of common descent since 2006, it seems. But that article does not mention an "argument from evolution" anymore, probably because it is extremely obscure. "Argument from" sounds as if it were a fallacy, but there is no such thing. It was probably an attempt by creationists to coin a phrase. I don't think the redirect makes sense anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added nomination which was incorrectly listed on the October 13 log page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep. I've just noticed that this redirect dates back to early 2002, so it should be preserved as an {{R with old history}} which clearly applies here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep– from reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from evolution (2nd nomination) that turned this redirect into a merge and per WP:MAD, I believe that this redirect needs to be maintained to comply with WP:GFDL. (Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting WP:MAD, because that is genuinely possible). snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a {{R from merge}}. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 5 November 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.

Cervesario

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 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cervesario → Beer sommelier#Cervesario (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Result from a merge carried out seven years ago. Since then, the target section doesn't exist any more, and "cervesario" is not even mentioned in the target article. No incoming links either. Looking at the old talk page comments, "cervesario" seems to have been used by one Polish brewery only. Delete this. JIP | Talk 10:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE rule 8. Seems to be obscure term for cicerone with very little usage outside of Poland/Polish according to my searches.snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:26, 5 November 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.

Kathleen Casey-Kirschling

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 03:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Casey-Kirschling → Baby boomers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at all in target Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Context and some level of notability and/or relevance needed for a redirect. A quick search on the individual shows a few novelty media mentions, but I doubt an article about her would survive AFD for notability. A redirect without context should be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be the first ever baby boomer in the US. Might be better off deleted due to WP:BLP1E issues. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This redirect is not obviously related to the subject of the article. She is also not independently notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:59, 10 November 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.

Cu04

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 03:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cu04 → Cuprate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Perhaps a typo of CuO4 (zero instead of a capital O) but both are nonsensical, as there is no copper oxide or ion with this formula. Alternatively could be trying to mean the Cu(IV) oxidation state (see Copper#Copper(III)_and_copper(IV), but this is an implausible way of writing this and it is not discussed at the current target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : History says I created it in 2018 - Zero probably a typo - my apologies. - Rod57 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Creator is also fine with deletion --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need to redirect typos unless it's pretty obvious what was meant. In this case, Cu04 would not obviously be a typo in search of cuprates, particularly because cuprates are more complex than ordinary oxides. Further, CuO4 isn't stable on it's own. It just doesn't make sense as a redirect --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:38, 8 November 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.

To have and to hold

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. Since the opening of this discussion, the target has changed. Participants seem to be okay with this outcome. Anarchyte (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To have and to hold → To Have and to Hold (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I suggest to retarget this to Marriage vows#Roman Catholic. The phrase seems much better known as a part of marriage vows than as an improperly-lowercased title of a book published 122 years ago. I'm not even sure the book is a proper primary target for the title case topic, when considering all the other topics listed at To Have and to Hold (disambiguation). Maybe I should have just done this without discussion, but another plausible target is To Have and to Hold (disambiguation). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation since the Catholics is not the only religion that uses this phrase in wedding vows. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After another look at Marriage vows, I think it should just be redirected to Marriage vows generally, rather than the section specific to Roman Catholicism. The same quote is found in many sections of that article, not just the Roman Catholicism section. Marriage vows and Habendum clause are the only topics on the disambiguation page that properly use all-lowercase formatting, and I believe the Marriage vows meaning is by far the more prominent of the two. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget to~~ Keep at To Have and to Hold (which is now the disambiguation page after a successful RM). It seems likely to me that most people using this search term, even if uncapitalised, are looking for one of the many fictional works with this name, and not for either the concept of, or specific wedding vows. And the wedding vows are prominently featured on the disambiguation page anyway. Lennart97 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another discussion in which two targets are being discussed. Current target was moved and is now a DAB page, so further retarget !votes should be labeled as "keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect to To Have and to Hold. It would not make sense for a redirect differing only by case to go to an altogether different article. Most entries on the disambiguation page use title case. JIP | Talk 18:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to keeping as a redirect to a disambiguation page. (The target wasn't a disambiguation page when I started this discussion.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it points to a disambiguation page. (If anyone was wondering, the recent move discussion is at Talk:To Have and to Hold (Johnston novel).) - Eureka Lott 13:41, 9 November 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.

The Lost Boys (2020 TV series)

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 The Lost Boys (franchise)#TV series plans and pilot. Tagged with {{r from incorrect title}}. Jay (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Boys (2020 TV series) → The Lost Boys (franchise) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

TV series did not end up comming out in 2020. ★Trekker (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect implies that its topic was released. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now, since it's still getting a steady trickle of pageviews (so there must be incoming traffic from somewhere). Since the TV series was planned for a 2020 release before COVID this is probably a plausible enough search term to merit keeping anyway. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to § TV series plans and pilot per 192.76' logic as an {{r from incorrect title}}. There's no ambiguity with any other article, and people won't be misled into thinking that it came out in 2020, because, refined, this will point readers to a section that explains this show's fate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to The Lost Boys (franchise)#TV series plans and pilot per Tazmin. If we redirect people to this section that explains the TV show not seeing the light of day, it will be helpful to viewers who may at first think it was released. Regards, SONIC678 20:08, 5 November 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.

HAIFA

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 HAIFA construction. The redirect was recently set to point to Haifa, which clearly received no support in this discussion. Among the alternatives proposed, HAIFA construction is both the pre-existing target and most supported. Deryck C. 13:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAIFA → Haifa (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created four years ago as a redirect to HAIFA construction and recently changed to Haifa. Is someone who searched on all caps more likely to be looking for the city or the hash function usage? No current usage in other articles. MB 22:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to HAIFA construction. Similar cases like BATMAN, COBRA, and COWS don't point to the normally-cased base title (e.g. Batman) either. They point to the respective disambiguation pages which have multiple topics written in all-caps. However in this case the current target is the only topic at Haifa (disambiguation) which is normally written in all-caps. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Haifa (disambiguation) as {{R from other capitalisation}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}. Have you ever hit CapsLock by accident? This is the same as e.g. band names stylised in caps, where our article is Bandname (band) or Bandname, not BANDNAME. Narky Blert (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First choice is to to the city as person who just writes HAIFA he probably forgot his caps lock. The Second choice Haifa (disambiguation) Shrike (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Haifa is a guaranteed way to collect silly links for the amusement of people with nothing better to do than look for and point and laugh at silly links in WP, and won't help readers. Narky Blert (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you how its a way to collect silly links for the amusement of people ? Shrike (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Haifa (disambiguation): There are too many potential targets. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Haifa (disambiguation): I generally dislike relying on capitalization to determine the intended target. Winston (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to HAIFA construction per 61.239, with hatnote to both Haifa and the DAB to address the caps-lock concern. I don't see any indication that any of the other titles at Haifa (disambiguation) are frequently rendered in all-caps. Yes, people can hit caps lock by accident, but our priority should always be correctly-spelled titles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants have yet to decide which target is best. Haifa (disambiguation) or HAIFA construction?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to HAIFA construction, and add the two hatnotes per Tamzin. Readers can hit the CapsLock sometimes, not all the time! Jay (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to HAIFA construction per Tamzin, Jay, and IP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to HAIFA construction. Priority should be given to correct usage, and there is no competing usage in all caps. Note that this is the status quo ante, so a "no consensus" close should default to targeting HAIFA construction. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 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.