Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2020.

Margaret Porteous[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 1665#January–June. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Margaret Porteous" is sometimes identified as the first person recorded to have died in the plague outbreak, but this trivia is not currently discussed in the article and has not been for a decade. Consequently, it is just a surprise dead-end for anyone who searches for this term. Unless the term "Margaret Porteous" can be added to the target article with acceptable sourcing, the redirect is useless and should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2020 (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.

IPhone 9[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This redirect has a long history of being problematic. It was first created in September 2017 as a redirect to iPhone X as a {{R from incorrect name}}. In October 2017, it was boldly retargeted to iPhone, then subsequently retargeted back to iPhone X as a result of this November 2017 RfD. After another series of bold retargeting to iPhone XR, the redirect was deleted in an October 2018 RfD. It was recreated in September 2019 with iPhone XS as the target, then deleted via WP:G4.
In its current form, the redirect was recreated again in October 2019 with iPhone XS as the target. It was then boldly retargeted several times, variously to iPhone#Models, a now-deleted disambiguation page, and now currently to iPhone SE (2nd generation). In my view, this redirect is inherently problematic because there is no phone called the iPhone 9, and a redirect to any one device may be confusing to readers. The one target I may understand is iPhone#Models, but I see no reason to diverge from the result of the October 2018 RfD that deleted this redirect. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone#Models. Given that there is an iPhone 8 and an iPhone 10 (albeit stylised iPhone X) this is a very plausible search term - as the repeated recreations demonstrate. As there is no model by this name, we should point the searcher at the list so they can find the model they are interested in and/or learn that there was no model 9 rather than be left perplexed about why we don't have an article about it. The last RfD only had a delete outcome because nobody could agree which target was best but agreed it wasn't the then current one - that close was understandable but resulted in something that was clearly unsatisfactory and a bad deal for readers. After this discussion concludes, the redirect should be protected to prevent further undiscussed retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no such phone so I agree with Mz7 that any redirect is potentially misleading, even one to iPhone#Models. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would a redirect to the list of models be misleading? Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so such phone, quite misleading. Ed6767 talk! 23:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab as there are many interpretations of this. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you put on the dab page that will differ from the list of models? Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Iphone 9, it's alt-capitalized sibling. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone#Models or better yet to List of iOS devices#iPhone. This is a plausible search term as Thryduulf has correctly pointed out and I don't understand how can someone get confused if this redirects to a list of models (where there is a clear description of each iPhone model). Also, we should avoid deleting this if it will eventually get recreated by some random user as it has many times in the past. CycloneYoris talk! 01:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to IPhone X. Those who are finding for an "iPhone 9" are probably searching for the iPhone that succeeded the iPhone 8 series, which is iPhone X. I don't see how that is misleading or confusing, seeing that Windows 9 redirects to Windows 10. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The iPhone X actually wasn't the successor to the iPhone 8—in an unusual release, it was released alongside the iPhone 8. If you are looking for the successor to the iPhone 8, another candidate for that would be either iPhone XS or iPhone XR (both also released alongside each other), but this whole thing is so contrived and ambiguous that the best solution is most likely to just redirect to a list of all the models (iPhone#Models) and let the reader decide what they're looking for. Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I appreciate the effort the nominator took to demonstrate how harmful the redirect has been over the years, especially since it was recreated. I see no reason to differ from the previous result, and I especially echo BDD's rationale there: "Incorrect name for several different topics. I'm not crazy about redirecting to the list section without further context; that seems to imply it's a valid name for at least one list item." -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate Tavix's highlighting of my previous argument, and I stand by it. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, harmful and misleading redirect (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 10 July 2020 (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.

BatDR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#BatDR

Scottish Gaels[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 Gaels. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Gaels. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. "Gaels" is an ethnicity, not a language. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (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.

Gaels/Scots[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, definitely a WP:XY as most Scots during the last several centuries have not identified as Gaels. (t · c) buidhe 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Buidhe. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Glades12 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would not surprise me if this is an exact formulation with some specific individual meaning. However, no matter how hard I try, Google "helpfully" shows me results that are not exact matches but anything that happens to list Gaels and Scots in that order (e.g. a book called "Picts, Gaels and Scots" that gets cited in about half a dozen different ways). Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2020 (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.

Dachau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#Dachau

List of adjectives[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not what the reader is looking for. We don't have a "List of verbs" either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2020 (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.

WWII concentration camps[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 Internment. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague: could also refer to Gulags, Japanese internment in North America, Japanese concentration camps, etc. Not a commonly searched term so I don't see the value in disambiguation. buidhe 05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's enough here for a BCA, but for now a disambiguation page is probably the best option (the pageviews are decent for a redirect). List of concentration and internment camps would be of value if split chronologically rather than country-wise (perhaps there's value in having two lists there). — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per J947. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to concentration camps. A scholar, whose name I am blocking on, did an authoritative history of the term concentration camp. I am not sure Gulags meet the definition, but all the allied camps where foreigners from hostile countries were rounded up did meet the definition of a concentration camp. Rounded up and confined, without charge, makes it a concentration camp, so the camps for Americans and Canadians of Japanese descent were concentration camps. Geo Swan (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to concentration camps, as the most suitable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2020 (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.

Magwayen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#Magwayen

King William III[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 William III of England. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (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.

King Henry VII[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 Henry VII of England. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (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.

King Henry VI[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 Henry VI of England. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore previous target of Henry VI of England. The only other candidate is Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, who was styled "King of the Romans" but is not generally known as "King Henry VI". Certes (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Henry VI of England. Primary topic: [3]. DrKay (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to primary subject Henry VI of England. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per above. "King of the Romans" was a courtesy title; thus it was Soandso, King of the Romans, not King Soandso of the Romans. Henry VI of the Holy Roman Empire had the regnal number VI as emperor, but not necessarily as king. Narky Blert (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2020 (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.

King Henry V[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 speedy keep. I am withdrawing the nomination because the main interested parties agree on the current target. (non-admin closure) Certes (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nomination: will merge with King William IV Merge failed due to multiple edit conflicts; will discuss separately Certes (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – the only king of this name. We may be able to keep this one speedily, as the retargetting to dab Henry V has been reverted. Certes (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Primary topic: [4]. DrKay (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Interstellarity: Does anyone object if I withdraw this nomination? It was intended to discuss a change of target which has been reverted, so we may all be in agreement here. Certes (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (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.

King William IV[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 speedy keep. I am withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be retargeted to the dab page because the dab page has no primary topic. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose/keep. There aren't any other kings called William IV. DrKay (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the dab page William IV has no primary topic for "William IV". However, only one entry is a king. The others are dukes, princes, etc., who are not known as "King William IV". Certes (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Certes: I took a look in depth and I think your revert to this redirect was justified. He is the only one that was a king while the others were not. I don't think this redirect will benefit from further discussion. I think it is best to withdraw the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2020 (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.

SL C5 (The Silver Arrow)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2020 (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.

Hammarby Depot[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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2020 (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.

Stockholm Local Traffic[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; this is not an uncommon translation. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is reasonable – an English translation of the Swedish name is a sensible redirect on an English wiki. /Julle (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless and not ambiguous. Hog Farm Bacon 19:14, 4 July 2020 (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.

List of Stockholm Metro Stations[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. WP:SNOW. I see no reason to prolong this discussion any further. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2020 (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.

Transportation in Sweden[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. WP:SNOW Plausible search term and consensus is overwhelmingly clear. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; this is a reasonable synonym/search term. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. English WP permits Americanisms. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is reasonable and helpful. /Julle (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a perfect example of a good engvar redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at present 5 articles (excluding user/talk/this page) link to the redirect. Change these links before suggesting deletion.--BIL (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Transportation would be the proper form in some variants of English. Hog Farm Bacon 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible synonym --Lenticel (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2020 (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.

Nyboda Depot[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. WP:SNOW. Consensus is sufficiently clear. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was set up by a socket puppet who vandalised and changed the names various Swedish transport related wikipages. Devokewater (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2020 (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.

Patriarch of Rome[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. It's probably closer to a "no consensus" for Patriarchate of Rome, but the result remains the same. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should these go to the same place, or is the current setup good? The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome, and the Holy See includes his ecclesiastical sphere, but it's a good deal "larger" than that, both geographically (the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch are subject to the Pope, not coëval with him) and in scope (the Holy See functions as a state under international law, not merely as an ecclesiastical jurisdiction). Since the patriarchate is basically just ecclesiastical (nobody cares about Francis-as-patriarch except in an ecclesiastical sense), I'm wondering if we'd do better to send both to the Pope article. Or if it is important to keep the Patriarchate redirect where it is, maybe because the title of Patriarch isn't as common anymore, i.e. it's more historical, should we change the Patriarch redirect to match? But then, it is a title of the Pope. So...I'm rather confused here, and that's why I brought both to RFD instead of being bold :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahhh tough one, I don't know how to !vote exactly, but I'm leaning towards both being directed to the Pope article. --Micky (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest Patriarchate of Rome -> Latin Church. Patriarch of Rome -> Pope makes sense to me, but it could just as well be -> Patriarch of the West. --Amble (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amble's first suggestions seem good. Patriarch of the West should not be used because it is now only historical. Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I entirely understand the nom's problem. I think the status quo is fine; there are enough links in both articles for a reader to discover subtleties of meaning. I don't agree with a redirect to Latin Church. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A majority (but not a clear consensus) is in favor of retargeting Patriarchate of Rome to Latin Church, while there's a clear consensus for keeping Patriarch of Rome as it is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patriarch of Rome per above. Weak keep Patriarchate of Rome - I've skim read all the articles suggested above and some of those linked. None of them we really perfect targets, but various templates and links expect it to be covered on the Holy See article so I think any change could confuse people with different targets for the same term depending which link they followed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2020 (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.

Zico Lewis[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not indicate that this Bermudan footballer is know as "Zico" rather than "Zeiko", and a Google search shows a Cayman Islands footballer called "Zico Lewis" who seems like a different person. Unless this ambiguity is resolved I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:01, 5 July 2020 (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.

Bilaspur, Bihar[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 speedy keep. Withdrawn per nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 17:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilaspur is a fictional village where the film Mrityudand is set. However, there is an actual village called Belaspur or Bilaspur in Bihar, in Mairwa (community development block); Google turns up evidence of its existence. Delete to remove confusion (especially among people who didn't realise they were living in a film).

Note to closer. Please {{ping}} me if the result is delete - there will be some cleaning up to do in at least three articles. Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I think I may have worked out a way of fixing everything without needing to do anything exotic. I'll be back, or not, after I've thought it through completely and tried it. Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2020 (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.

SUNY football[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 State University of New York#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both an unlikely search term for readers and an unlikely target (13 SUNY institutions have football teams, including 4 Division I teams, so it's very unclear why this one specific institution is highlighted). ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ambiguous. Multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Hog Farm (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, since multiple schools in the SUNY system have football teams. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate same issue as another RfD. --Micky (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Distinguish between D1 SUNY football teams. --Yankees999 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, implausible search term redirecting makes as much since as redirecting University of California system football to Cal, UCLA, UC Davis etc.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with this result, as well. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since consensus is still unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (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.

Space programme of the United States[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 Space policy of the United States. A lot of this hinges on whether Soumya's draft gets accepted. It hasn't yet, so I will accept Soumya's suggestion to retarget to the Space policy article for now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US space program is not entirely contained in NASA; NASA is only the civilian side of the US national space program. There is also a military side (e.g. United States Space Force) and a private side (e.g. SpaceX) that was enabled by law changes in c. 1990s. Therefore, retarget this and other redirects to Category:Space program of the United States à la Space program of the United States. See below. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2020 (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.

Dansou[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 Otokonoko. I'll hatnote for the swimmer. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These terms appear to have at one point been added to the target, but have since been contested and removed by AngusWOOF. I don't have an opinion on whether they should be included at the target, but unless we have a consensus to include it there, the redirects should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Otokonoko where it's better described. "The term otokonoko is used interchangibly with the terms josō/josōko (女装/女装子, "transvestite" or "male crossdresser") for men who dress as women" I'll add Dansou (women crossdress as men) to that term, but it should have a hatnote to Danso. Retarget Josou seme to Seme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Dansou for Alois Dansou and Otokonoko#Dansou (which should really be spelled dansō per MOS:JA#General guidelines). A search in Google Books and News on "dansou" suggests the Japanese term is not the primary topic for this spelling. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Otokonoko per AngusWOOF and easily the primary topic over a fringe 2000s swimmer from Benin. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2020 (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.

Pharoah zoser[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 mixed. Clear consensus to delete the ones with accents, no consensus for the ones that Sonic678 argued "weak keep" for. An implicit delete vote from nom coupled with an "unsure" vote from the sole participant leads me to see a quorum for deletion for the remainder. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a WP:RFOREIGN case. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, delete the ones with accents per WP:RFOREIGN. Unsure on the rest though. Regards, SONIC678 05:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_4&oldid=971039492"